Saturday, August 23, 2008

various headlines

The Year of the Political Blogger

The New York Times is running a story about how political blogging has arrived as a widely-accepted form of reporting during this election year. In addition to the nationwide TV and radio audiences, the candidates are making efforts to get their message onto the increasingly popular blog network. In doing so, they've elevated bloggers to the level of traditional media reporters at the national conventions. "The major political parties first gave credentials to bloggers in 2004. The Republicans allowed a dozen bloggers to attend their convention in New York, while the Democrats gave bloggers 35 seats in the nosebleed section of the Fleet Center in Boston. This year, the R.N.C. gave credentials to 200 bloggers as a means to 'get Senator McCain's message out to more people,' said Joanna Burgos, the press secretary of the convention. For bloggers attending the Democratic convention at the Pepsi Center in Denver, two types of credentials are offered. The first is a national credential, which offers the same access granted to members of traditional news media organizations. The second, more coveted credential is the state blogger credential. It allows one blogger per state to cover the convention alongside its state delegation, with unlimited floor access." Of course, political blogs are abuzz today with the news of Obama's selection of Senator Joe Biden as a running mate.

Will Joe Scarborough Finally Drop The "Latte Sipping Liberal" Garbage Now?

GOP hack Joe Scarborough hasn't been on the air for nearly two weeks thanks to the Olympics and a lot has happened in that time.  He and the Morning Joe crew will have a lot of ground to cover when they return to the airwaves, but unfortunately for Joe, one of his favorite wingnut memes has been blown to smithereens while he was away — the stereotypical, elitist, latte sipping liberals.

Now that we've learned from the LA Times that John McCain ditched reporters and dragged a 9 car motorcade to Starbucks to snag a large cappuccino on Friday, I think it's time for Joe to let it go.  Hell, McCain was probably wearing his $500 Italian loafers at the time (I bet he has more than one pair) and probably had a hard time deciding which home to return to.

It's time to give it up, Joe. I think we all know who the real latte-sipping elitist is now.


Shawn Johnson is Golden

She wins on the balance beam, but I just love those "peace" earrings. You go Shawn.

Nastia Liukin was really Golden too…Yes, I love woman's gymnastics…

Looks like China are a bunch of  crooks and liars on top of everything else.


Video: Taekwondo Athlete Kicks Ref in Head

Angel Matos, a Cuban taekwondo competitor, kicked the referee in the face after being disqualified from a bronze-medal match at the Olympics. The competitor and his coach are likely to be banned for life. See the video.

24/7 Wall St. Most Overpaid CEO Of The Day: Ford (F) CEO Alan Mulally

Ford1Ford (F) came within a nickel of its 52-week low yesterday, hitting $4.35. News also came out that the US car companies will urge Congress to support funding up to $50 billion in low-interest loans over three years. Perhaps the Big Three should go into the banking business. The federal support would be forthcoming more quickly.

Alan Mulally was to be Ford's savior, replacing Bill Ford who could not get from the front door of the Ford headquarters to his Lincoln in the parking lot without a guide.

According to the last Ford proxy, Mulally has a base salary of $2 million. In 2007, his total compensation was over $21 million.

Ford's defense of Mulally's pay is likely to be that the entire industry is in trouble. The logic for that is thin. CEO compensation rarely ignores outside forces, even if those forces are overwhelming. Pay for performance is just that. Ford's stock is down 40% over the last two years. Another year of Mulally making $20 million would be inappropriate.

It would also cost Ford shareholders money that the company does not have. Unless, that is, the government gets them that $50 billion.



Prosecuting obese aunt problematic for Hidalgo County | Chronicle | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

Prosecuting obese aunt problematic for Hidalgo County | Chronicle | Chron.com - Houston Chronicle

HOUSTON — Authorities are scrambling to figure out how to arrest, incarcerate and prosecute a woman estimated to weigh nearly half a ton and was indicted on capital murder charges.

Mayra Rosales, 27, has remained under house arrest since she was charged in March with beating her 2-year-old nephew to death. Rosales could face the death penalty if she is found guilty of capital murder.

But now that her case has moved into the state court system, law enforcement officials must address a whole new set of logistical problems before it can go to trial.

"We're struggling to find a place where she can be kept under lock and key," Rene Guerra, the Hidalgo County district attorney, told The Monitor in McAllen. "We have to wait and see what the judge decides."

The Hidalgo County Jail is not physically equipped to handle an inmate who weighs nearly 1,000 pounds, Sheriff Lupe Trevino said. And even if his office found a cell and a bed large enough for her, deputies are unsure the jail doctor is qualified to handle her various medical needs.

The costs of checking Rosales in for constant medical care could reach as high as $5,000 a day, according to the district attorney's office.

"I'm not ready to take that kind of money out of the county coffers if there are other options," Guerra said. "But I will if I have to."

Trevino suggested Friday that the court allow Rosales to remain under house arrest and be monitored using a global positioning system until her presence is required in court.

"I think she has shown from the day of her (initial) arrest to the day of her indictment that she's not a flight risk," he said.

Once she is summoned to court, a new set of problems arises.

Family members had to dismantle part of Rosales' La Joya home when they moved soon after 2-year-old Eliseo Gonzalez Jr.'s death. And accommodating her in the cramped courtrooms that fill the Hidalgo County Courthouse could prove impossible.

State law requires that all district court business take place in the county seat — in this case Edinburg. But court hearings could be moved to a more spacious building within city limits.

"You could turn a gym into a courtroom if you needed to," Trevino said.

Earlier this year, a New York Supreme Court justice agreed to arraign a 500-pound man in a parking lot, where he sat in the bed of a pickup truck. The man claimed his weight prevented him from climbing the courthouse steps.

Rosales has refused to comment since her initial arrest. It was unclear Friday whether she had retained an attorney.

Rosales' 20-year-old sister, Jamie Lee Rosales, the boy's mother, was indicted Thursday on one felony count of injury to a child. The charge is punishable by up to life in prison and $10,000 in fines upon conviction.

Prosecutors allege the mother left her child with the boy's morbidly obese aunt even though the younger Rosales knew her sister was incapable of caring for a toddler.

A prison sentence of any length for the elder Rosales is likely to raise a whole new set of questions.

"The cost may be astronomical," the sheriff said. "But you can't put a price on justice.

Are You Ready for Nuclear War? | AfterDowningStreet.org

Are You Ready for Nuclear War? | AfterDowningStreet.org

Pervez Musharraf, the puppet installed by the US to rule Pakistan in the interest of US hegemony, resigned August 18 to avoid impeachment. Karl Rove and the Diebold electronic voting machines were unable to control the result of the last election in Pakistan, the result of which gave Pakistanis a bigger voice in their government than America’s.

It was obvious to anyone with any sense -- which excludes the entire Bush Regime and almost all of the “foreign policy community -- that the illegal and gratuitous US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and Israel’s 2006 bombing of Lebanon civilians with US blessing, would result in the overthrow of America’s Pakistani puppet.

The imbecilic Bush Regime ensured Musharraf’s overthrow by pressuring their puppet to conduct military operations against tribesmen in Pakistani border areas, whose loyalties were to fellow Muslims and not to American hegemony. When Musharraf’s military operations didn’t produce the desired result, the idiotic Americans began conducting their own military operations within Pakistan with bombs and missiles. This finished off Musharraf.

When the Bush Regime began its wars in the Middle East, I predicted, correctly, that Musharraf would be one victim. The American puppets in Egypt and Jordan may be the next to go.

Back during the Nixon years, my Ph.D. dissertation chairman, Warren Nutter, was Assistant Secretary of Defense for International Security Affairs. One day in his Pentagon office I asked him how the US government got foreign governments to do what the US wanted. “Money,” he replied.

“You mean foreign aid?” I asked.

“No,” he replied, “we just buy the leaders with money.”

It wasn’t a policy he had implemented. He inherited it and, although the policy rankled with him, he could do nothing about it. Nutter believed in persuasion and that if you could not persuade people, you did not have a policy.

Nutter did not mean merely third world potentates were bought. He meant the leaders of England, France, Germany, Italy, all the allies everywhere were bought and paid for.

They were allies because they were paid. Consider Tony Blair. Blair’s own head of British intelligence told him that the Americans were fabricating the evidence to justify their already planned attack on Iraq. This was fine with Blair, and you can see why, with his multi-million dollar payoff once he was out of office.

The American-educated thug, Saakashkvili the War Criminal, who is president of Georgia, was installed by the US taxpayer funded National Endowment for Democracy, a neocon operation whose purpose is to ring Russia with US military bases, so that America can exert hegemony over Russia.

Every agreement that President Reagan made with Mikhail Gorbachev has been broken by Reagan’s successors. Reagan’s was the last American government whose foreign policy was not made by the Israeli-allied neoconservatives. During the Reagan years, the neocons made several runs at it, but each ended in disaster for Reagan, and he eventually drove them from his government.

Even the anti-Soviet Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as dangerous lunatics. I remember the meeting when a member tried to bring
the neocons into the committee, and old line American establishment representatives, such as former Treasury Secretary Douglas Dillon, hit the roof.

The Committee on the Present Danger regarded the neocons as crazy people who would get America into a nuclear war with the Soviet Union. The neocons hated President Reagan, because he ended the cold war with diplomacy, when they desired
a military victory over the Soviet Union.

Deprived of this, the neocons now want victory over Russia.

Today, Reagan is gone. The Republican Establishment is gone. There are no conservative power centers, only neoconservative power centers closely allied with Israel, which uses the billions of dollars funneled into Israeli coffers by US taxpayers to influence US elections and foreign policy.

The Republican candidate for president is a warmonger. There are no checks remaining in the Republican Party on the neocons’ proclivity for war. What Republican constituencies oppose war? Can anyone name one?

The Democrats are not much better, but they have some constituencies that are not enamored of war in order to establish US world hegemony. The Rapture Evangelicals, who fervently desire Armageddon, are not Democrats; nor are the brainwashed Brownshirts desperate to vent their frustrations by striking at someone, somewhere, anywhere.

I get emails from these Brownshirts and attest that their hate-filled ignorance is extraordinary. They are all Republicans, and yet they think they are conservatives. They have no idea who I am, but since I criticize the Bush Regime and America’s belligerent foreign policy, they think I am a “liberal commie pinko.”

The only literate sentence this legion of fools has ever managed is: “If you hate America so much, why don’t you move to Cuba!”

Such is the current state of a Reagan political appointee in today’s Republican Party. He is a “liberal commie pinko” who should move to Cuba.

The Republicans will get us into more wars. Indeed, they live for war. McCain is preaching war for 100 years. For these warmongers, it is like cheering for your home team. Win at all costs. They get a vicarious pleasure out of war. If the US has to tell lies in order to attack countries, what’s wrong with that? “If we don’t kill them over there, they will kill us over here.”

The mindlessness is total.

Nothing real issues from the American press, which is about demonizing Russia and Iran, about the vice presidential choices as if it matters, about whether Obama being on vacation let McCain score too many points.

The mindlessness of the news reflects the mindlessness of the government, for which it is a spokesperson.

The American media do not serve American democracy or American interests. They serve the few people who exercise power.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, the US and Israel made a run at controlling Russia and the former constituent parts of its empire. For awhile the US and Israel succeeded, but Putin put a stop to it.

Recognizing that the US had no intention of keeping any of the agreements it had made with Gorbachev, Putin directed the Russian military budget to upgrading the Russian nuclear deterrent. Consequently, the Russian army and air force lack the smart weapons and electronics of the US military.

When the Russian army went into Georgia to rescue the Russians in South Ossetia from the destruction being inflicted upon them by the American puppet Saakashvili, the Russians made it clear that if they were opposed by American troops with smart weapons, they would deal with the threat with tactical nuclear weapons.

The Americans were the first to announce preemptive nuclear attack as their permissible war doctrine. Now the Russians have announced the tactical use of nuclear weapons as their response to American smart weapons.

It is obvious that American foreign policy, with its goal of ringing Russia with US military bases, is leading directly to nuclear war. Every American needs to realize this fact. The US government’s insane hegemonic foreign policy is a direct threat to life on the planet.

Russia has made no threats against America. The post-Soviet Russian government has sought to cooperate with the US and Europe. Russia has made it clear over and over that it is prepared to obey international law and treaties. It is the Americans who have thrown international law and treaties into the trash can, not the Russians.

In order to keep the billions of dollars in profits flowing to its contributors in the US military-security complex, the Bush Regime has rekindled the cold war. As American living standards decline and the prospects for university graduates deteriorate, “our” leaders in Washington commit us to a hundred years of war.

If you desire to be poor, oppressed, and eventually vaporized in a nuclear war, vote Republican.

Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration. He was Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page and Contributing Editor of National Review. He is coauthor of The Tyranny of Good Intentions.He can be reached at: PaulCraigRoberts@yahoo.com

Comcast Embarrasses the 'Free Market' Once Again | Public Knowledge

Comcast Embarrasses the 'Free Market' Once Again | Public Knowledge

It didn’t take Comcast long to run away from its latest embarrassment. On Wednesday, Comcast Senior Vp Mitch Bowling told Bloomberg News that in an effort to control traffic, Comcast might slow down the transmission of packets from its heaviest users by “10 minutes to 20 minutes.” Here’s the story. PC World had the same story.

By Thursday, Comcast had backed off, telling IDG that the company had made “no final decisions” on how to proceed with a traffic management plan.

The irony here, of course, is that the first stories on Comcast’s plans to “deprioritize” packets from its biggest users broke as part of the coverage of the Federal Communications Commission’s order smacking Comcast down for what the Commission called “invasive and outright discriminatory” practices that flew in the face of Federal policy to continue the development of the Internet. Comcast has 30 days to tell the Commission how it plans to put network management in place that doesn’t violate standard network protocols.

Apparently, at one point the plan was to delay the traffic of heavy users until, that is, someone at Comcast realized they had another PR disaster on their hands and backtracked faster than a Comcast user with supplemental Powerboost. You remember Powerboost – supposed to make it easier to download lots of material faster. It will be interesting to see how that enhancement survives in the new era of enforced Internet shortages.

More than Comcast’s obvious embarrassment, however, the announcement that it was even thinking about holding up the traffic of heavy users is just another demonstration of how far off the thinking is of those, like John McCain or FCC Commissioner Rob McDowell, who continue to insist there is a “free market” for broadband. In what other industry could a provider willy-nilly hold up the service of a customer using the bandwidth he or she is paying for without suffering any competitive consequences?

Not in the broadband market. The testing centers Comcast is using are, for the most part, small towns with little or no competition – Chambersburg, PA; Warrenton, VA; East Orange, FL (nor incorporated) and Lake City, FL – all have fewer than 20,000 people and in some cases a population with lots of low-income residents. The exception, Colorado Springs, CO, has 360,000 people and some competition that may eventually develop from two other cable systems, Falcon and Porchlight, which have been awarded city franchises to compete with Comcast. But at the moment they still serve small areas and Comcast is still the dominant player.

For an illustration on the malicious evil of duopoly, consider this story from upstate New York. The customer’s telephone company, Frontier (formerly Rochester Telephone), imposed a 5 GB/month usage cap – hardly enough for some movies and TV. He might switch, but the cable company is Time Warner, which is playing around with a cap of similar size.

A revealing quote from the story cites an internal Frontier email which says, “The growth of traffic means the company has to invest millions in its network and infrastructure, threatening its profitability.” That’s a shame for a company that on August 5 reported “Solid 2008 Second-Quarter Results with Strong High-Speed Net Additions.” In their financial news release, the company said data and Internet revenue continued to grow, and their capital expenditures were up 14 per cent from second quarter 2007.

Even so, it is much easier, after all, simply to clamp down on your customers than to expand the business. It’s easy to concoct an artificial network shortage in a less than competitive environment. That’s one interpretation. The other, from the story, is that it shouldn’t be hard for the company to keep up if it makes the right investments.

A less-than-competitive market can lead to all sorts of mischief. Usage caps, “deprioritization,” even a service which violates every tenet of Net Neutrality can all be “justified” in the name of managing a network in a time of shortages.

The public never gets to see what causes the shortages. There are no cases before the FCC or state regulators in which evidence has to be presented for public view. Every once in a while there might be a data request, as Canadian regulators did recently, finding little need for “throttling.”

No, the eventual answer should be something that recognizes the reality of the situation. Broadband now doesn’t present sufficient competitive choices for consumers, and the policies should be changed to make certain that those choices can be created.

Political Affairs Magazine - The Worst of Poverties

Political Affairs Magazine - The Worst of Poverties

"To be poor in the midst of riches is the worst of poverties" is a thought by Seneca that seems to guide the ideas summarized in a substantial article titled "Unequal America" that appears in the July issue of Harvard Magazine. It is written by its associate editor, Elizabeth Gudrais.

The author cites a study by Prof. Majid Ezzati, of the Harvard School of Public Health (HSPH) and, along with him, reflects that when one thinks about the cause of a drop in life expectancy, one thinks "about an epidemic like HIV, or the collapse of a social system, like in the former Soviet Union. But such a decline is happening right now in some parts of the United States."

Between 1983 and 1999, the life expectancy of males dropped in more than 50 US counties. For women, the news was worse: it declined in 900 counties. This means that more than four percent of all American men and 19 percent of all American women must expect a life as long as – or shorter than – the people in their home counties two decades ago.

In fact, the United States, the world's richest nation, is not the healthiest. It doesn't even appear on the list of the 40 nations with the longest life expectancy.

Of course, the United States' decreasing health indicators are not manifested equitably throughout the population but concentrate on the least favored, cautions Professor Ezzati's study, as cited by Gudrais.

The disparities in health issues tend to be proportional to income everywhere. The poor are more prone to get sick and die earlier than others everywhere, but in the United States the gap between the rich and the poor is much, much wider than in any other industrialized nation.

The author believes the average US citizen is more tolerant about income inequality. He seeks equality of opportunities when his European counterparts want fairer wages. In the United States, any debate about inequalities leads to another debate over whether the poor deserve help and solidarity or need to be left to lift themselves up by their bootstraps.

The enactment of tax policies as a procedure for the redistribution of the income of the rich for the benefit of the poor, which serves as a campaign argument in Europe, is not seen the same in the US.

According to the study, inequalities in the US have grown at an ever-faster pace since the late 1970s and have reached a level not seen since the so-called "Gilded Age" (1870-1900), a period in the nation's history defined by the contrast between the excesses of the super rich and the squalor of the poor.

Early in the 20th Century, the share of total national income drawn by the top 1 percent of the US earners was 18 percent. That share reached an all-time high of 21.1 percent in 1928. After World War II, a period of intense economic and cultural development that brought great prosperity to the American middle class, the top 1 percent of earners took home less than 10 percent of all income through the 1960s and 1970s. But, from then until 1996, the share of the richest 1 percent rose to 15 percent and in 2006, the most recent year for which numbers are available, accounted for 20.3 percent of the total wealth.

In 1965, the average salary of a high-ranking functionary in a bit company in the US was 25 times the average salary of a worker. Today, the distance is 10 times greater -- a multiplication by 250.

In terms of life expectancy, the United States occupies the 21st place among the 30 highly industrialized nations that form the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and 25th place in the infant-mortality list. In view of the preceding date, it can be assumed how different the figures in these two indicators are for the rich and the poor.

The article mentions some recent data about the "miraculously" high social mobility in the United States, when it states that 42 percent of the children of parents in the poorest segment remain in the most backward segment after they reach adulthood. And 39 percent of the children of parents in the higher segment, continue in that privileged segment after they become adults.

According to research cited by Harvard Magazine, the big social inequalities are always related to scenarios of higher criminality, less happiness and worse mental and physical health, if all these are not the root cause. There is evidence that to live in a society with major disparities -- in health, wealth and education -- is worse for all members of society, not excepting the better-situated members, the article says.

Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers - washingtonpost.com

Protections Set for Antiabortion Health Workers - washingtonpost.com

Man this is insane......from the WaPo:

By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, August 22, 2008; A01

The Bush administration yesterday announced plans to implement a controversial regulation designed to protect doctors, nurses and other health-care workers who object to abortion from being forced to deliver services that violate their personal beliefs.

The rule empowers federal health officials to pull funding from more than 584,000 hospitals, clinics, health plans, doctors' offices and other entities if they do not accommodate employees who refuse to participate in care they find objectionable on personal, moral or religious grounds.

"People should not be forced to say or do things they believe are morally wrong," Health and Human Services Secretary Mike Leavitt said. "Health-care workers should not be forced to provide services that violate their own conscience."

The proposed regulation, which could go into effect after a 30-day comment period, was welcomed by conservative groups, abortion opponents and others as necessary to safeguard workers from being fired, disciplined or penalized in other ways. Women's health advocates, family planning advocates, abortion rights activists and others, however, condemned the regulation, saying it could create sweeping obstacles to a variety of health services, including abortion, family planning, end-of-life care and possibly a wide range of scientific research.

"It's breathtaking," said Robyn S. Shapiro, a bioethicist and lawyer at the Medical College of Wisconsin. "The impact could be enormous."

The regulation drops the most controversial language in a draft version that would have explicitly defined abortion for the first time in a federal law or regulation as anything that interfered with a fertilized egg after conception. But both supporters and critics said the regulation remains broad enough to protect pharmacists, doctors, nurses and others from providing birth control pills, Plan B emergency contraception and other forms of contraception, and explicitly allows workers to withhold information about such services and refuse to refer patients elsewhere.

"The Bush administration's proposed regulation poses a serious threat to women's health care by limiting the rights of patients to receive complete and accurate health information and services," said Cecile Richards of the Planned Parenthood Federation of America. "Women's ability to manage their own health care is at risk of being compromised by politics and ideology."

Leavitt said he requested the new regulation after becoming alarmed by reports that health-care workers were being pressured to perform duties they found repugnant. He cited moves by two professional organizations for obstetricians and gynecologists that he said might require doctors who object to abortions to refer patients to other physicians who would provide them.

An early draft of the regulation that leaked in July triggered a flood of criticism from women's health activists, family planning advocates, members of Congress and others. Concern focused on fears that the definition of abortion could be interpreted to include many forms of widely used contraception.

"Words in that draft led some to misconstrue the department's intent," Leavitt told reporters during a telephone news conference. "This regulation . . . is consistent with my intent to focus squarely on the issue of conscience rights. This specifically goes to the issue of abortion and conscience."

But when pressed about whether the regulation would protect health-care workers who consider birth control pills, Plan B and other forms of contraception to be equivalent to abortion, Leavitt said: "This regulation does not seek to resolve any ambiguity in that area. It focuses on abortion and focuses on physicians' conscience in relation to that."

Both supporters and critics said the language remains broad enough to apply to contraceptives, as well as many other areas in medicine.

"I think this provides broad application not just to abortion and sterilization but any other type of morally objectionable procedure and research activity," said David Stevens of the Christian Medical and Dental Association. "We think it's badly needed. Our members are facing discrimination every day, and as we get into human cloning and all sorts of possibilities, it's going to become even more important."

Leavitt stressed that there was nothing in the regulation that would prevent any organization from providing any type of care.

"There is nothing in this rule that would in any way change a patient's right to a legal procedure," he said.

The regulation, which would cost more than $44 million to implement, was aimed at enforcing several federal laws that have been on the books since the 1970s and were aimed primarily at protecting doctors and nurses who did not want to perform abortions in the wake of the Supreme Court's Roe v. Wade decision, Leavitt said.

But critics said they remained alarmed at the scope of the regulation, which could apply to a wide range of health-care workers. For example, the regulation would cover "participating in any activity with a reasonable connection to the objectionable procedure, including referrals, training, and other arrangements for offending procedures.

"For example, an operating room nurse would assist in the performance of surgical procedures; an employee whose task it is to clean the instruments used in a particular procedure would be considered to assist in the performance of the particular procedure," the regulation states.

Obama Picks Biden as V.P. - The Fix

Obama Picks Biden as V.P. - The Fix

Barack Obama and Joe Biden

Barack Obama confers with Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) during a hearing of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which Biden chairs.

Barack Obama has chosen Delaware Sen. Joe Biden as his vice presidential running mate, a pick designed to shore up the Illinois senator's foreign policy credentials in advance of the November election against John McCain.

Biden's selection was confirmed by a Democratic source after an evening of speculation that centered on the Delaware senator when it was reported that the other top contenders were no longer under consideration. Biden had been considered the frontrunner for the job in recent weeks -- a position confirmed by a last-minute, unscheduled trip last weekend to meet with the president of Georgia.

News of the pick was reported in advance of the Obama campaign's planned Saturday announcement to supporters via email and text message.

Biden was first elected to the Senate in 1972 at the age of 29. A month after his election, his wife and daughter were killed in a car accident. Biden has not been seriously challenged since that first election -- a reflection of both the Democratic roots of the state and Biden's skillfulness as a politician.

Long rumored as a candidate for national office, Biden launched a presidential bid in 1987 that was gaining traction until a video was leaked to the press that showed striking similarities between a speech by Biden and an address by British Labour Party politician Neil Kinnock. Biden sought to beat back the controversy but subsequent allegations about plagiarism and resume inflation in law school forced him from the contest.

Biden was subsequently stricken in early 1988 by a brain aneurysm from which he recovered fully. Once his health improved, Biden threw himself back into the day to day working of the Senate where he chaired the high profile Judiciary Committee from 1987 until 1995. In that role, he chaired the controversial Supreme Court confirmation hearings of Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas. Biden has also served several stints as the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, a perch from which he has emerged as one of the leading voices in the Democratic Party on foreign policy matters.

Two decades after his first bid for president, Biden launched a second candidacy in 2007. He was never considered anything more than a longshot due to the presence of both Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton in the contest but acquitted himself well in the eyes of the Democratic establishment. Biden proved that the charisma that had recommended him as a rising star in the 1980s was still very much part of his political portfolio; he also excelled in the myriad debates held among the Democratic aspirants during the primary season.

For Obama, the Biden pick is a sign that he and his campaign believe that foreign policy matters will be front and center in the fall election. Biden brings the Democratic ticket immediate gravitas on issues ranging from the war in Iraq to the ongoing conflict between Russia and Georgia.

McCain has made no secret that he believes Obama's experience in public life ill suits him to handle the complex world situation into which the next president will immediately step. Biden, a serious politician with a far deeper resume than Obama, will complicate -- if not entirely blunt -- Republican attacks on the Illinois senator's readiness for office.

We'll have far more about the pick both on The Fix and the washingtonpost.com site more generally throughout the day. In the meantime, make sure to check out the case for and case against Biden as vice president we made in this space. They should provide a blueprint for how Democrats and Republicans will try to define the Delaware senator in the coming weeks and months.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Naomi Klein: China's Hi-Tech Surveillance State Is Ready for Export | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet

Naomi Klein: China's Hi-Tech Surveillance State Is Ready for Export | Rights and Liberties | AlterNet: "With 300,000 security cameras in Beijing alone, China is at the forefront of the surveillance boom -- and U.S. corporations are reaping the profits."

By Amy Goodman and Juan Gonzalez, Democracy Now!
Posted on August 18, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95310/

Juan Gonzalez: China deported five international activists [last week] for unfurling a "Free Tibet" banner over the top of an Olympic Games billboard. It's the latest incident in what has become an almost daily crackdown on both domestic and international protesters who have had to contend with a brand new surveillance system that China set up ahead of the games. This includes 300,000 security cameras and an estimated 100,000 security officers on duty in Beijing.

But it's not just Beijing that's gotten a security upgrade. There are now over 600 "safe" cities in China that have received new surveillance gear. The equipment and integrated security systems will remain long after the Olympics, to be used, many fear, on China's own population. The domestic surveillance market in China is expected to reach $33 billion next year. And some of the biggest beneficiaries of this boom are U.S. hedge funds and corporations, such as Cisco, General Electric and Google.

Amy Goodman: Award-winning journalist and bestselling author Naomi Klein calls this "McCommunism." Her latest article published in the Huffington Post is called "The Olympics: Unveiling Police State 2.0." Naomi Klein is author of The Shock Doctrine. She joins us on the phone from Canada.

We're also joined in our firehouse studio by investigative journalist and author Christian Parenti, who's also just back from China. His latest piece for The Nation magazine is called "Class Struggle in the New China".

We welcome you both to Democracy Now! Naomi Klein, let's begin with you. Lay out what you also called in Rolling Stone the "all-seeing eye."

Naomi Klein: Well, there's an incredible operation going on in China to use the latest, what's now called homeland security technology -- networked surveillance cameras, biometric identification cards, facial recognition software -- networking all of these cameras and running the software through it as a way to control an increasingly rebellious population. There's an incredible statistic from 2005 that there were 87,000 mass incidents, which means protests and riots, across the country.

So it is already being used as a way to control the population and also to keep an eye on what in China is called the floating population, the migrant population, who are displaced by mega projects, who travel to cities like Beijing and Guangzhou and Shenzhen looking for work. This is a mobile population that is right now 130 million people. And this technology is used to keep track of those people, because in a sort of Maoist time in China, you had -- where people stayed in their communities, you had networks of control and surveillance that were really about people snitching on their neighbors. When people are moving across long distances, the technology is replacing that. So "Police State 2.0" is really about upgrading the surveillance system, with the help, as you said earlier, of U.S. companies like Cisco, General Electric, who have been providing these technologies.

Juan Gonzalez: Your article talks about -- calls it the "Golden Shield," as the Chinese refer to it, and you focus especially on the city of Shenzhen, in terms of the enormous reach of this. I was struck that you mentioned, for instance, that every internet cafe in China has surveillance cameras that are hooked up to local police stations so that they can keep an eye on who is using the internet cafes?

Naomi Klein: Yeah, and the internet cafes are -- you know, they're really like internet bowling alleys. They're huge. An average-size internet cafe has 600 terminals. And there are dozens of cameras in the -- not just obviously the cameras on the computers, but surveillance cameras. And this is a huge market. You mentioned that it's worth $33 billion a year now. It's actually -- that's even increased since I wrote that article. The latest estimate is that it's going to be worth $43 billion, and -- a year within two years.

And the reason why this is such a fast-growing market is that it's not just that the internet cafes are installing these cameras; it's that it's a law now in China that they are required to install the cameras. So are at religious sites, so are entertainment sites, karaoke bars, restaurants. So, the government passes a law and says you must install these surveillance cameras, the companies comply, and then you have another set of companies who are connected to the party and also, as you said, to American companies. Many of them are listed on the NASDAQ, the New York Stock Exchange. And they are benefiting directly from this created market, this mandated market. You must install security cameras, so no wonder this is such a fast-growing market.

And we know that the global homeland security industry, which is now worth $200 billion globally, it really follows the money. So, after September 11th, that money was, in the U.S., in these huge expenditures on surveillance technology. It then moved to Iraq, and now it's really moved to China.

Amy Goodman: Can you talk about the significance of when the Olympics was awarded to China?

Naomi Klein: Yeah. I think this is really important for us to look at, at this point, because, in many ways, I think this moment provides us with a benchmark to understand exactly how much the standards on human rights have been eroded since September 11th, because China was awarded the Games exactly seven years ago, in July 2001, so right before the September 11th attacks. And, of course, it was very controversial. But there was of virtual consensus, among U.S. officials, at least, that the global scrutiny that would be placed on China in the lead-up to the Olympics would lead to an opening up, would force a democratization process, would lead to a freer press, would lead to more freedoms for human rights activists.

And that really hasn't happened. In fact, I think it's quite surprising how little scrutiny there has been on China's human rights record. And part of that has been that there -- any kind of moral suasion that there could have been, certainly from the United States -- and obviously one has to temper this, because I don't think that the U.S. -- the human rights record pre-September 11th was anything to brag about -- but any ability to sort of put moral pressure on China on human rights has really been eroded since September 11, and particularly when you see that China has moved to this high-tech version of repression and surveillance, which means it's much less in your face, it's four security cameras on a block as opposed to tanks.

And it looks a lot like what's happening in London, what's happening in New York, with the normalization of these technologies, and also, in the U.S., with the normalization of the loss of habeas corpus, of indefinite detention, of the normalization of torture. So, what we see in this timeline, from when China was awarded the Games to now in this moment when they are staging the Games, is not just that human rights have taken a step back in China, but that globally we've really lost our bearings.

Juan Gonzalez: And, of course, with China, there is the reality that the country has become the industrial heartland of worldwide capitalism, in terms of the sheer number of production workers that are churning out goods. And, Christian, your article deals with what's happened to the workers in China and to all -- in all of these factories, and what is life like in this surveillance state, but also a state that has become critical to worldwide capitalism.

Christian Parenti: Yeah, and despite a long history of repression under Chinese communism and the legacy of the Cultural Revolution in this increasing use of surveillance, there's actually quite a lot of class struggle, to use an old-fashioned term. By one estimate, supposedly from the Chinese government leaked to independent labor activists, a thousand people a day in Shenzhen, the main industrial city in the south, are involved in some sort of labor action.

So, what I looked at in this article was peasant and worker resistance. And there is actually evidence that despite the odds against them, they're having some success. And one major measure of this is the fact that the new government that came in 2002, 2003, Hu Jintao and Wen Jiabao, have responded to the growing discontent, not necessarily out of some sort of enlightened set of theories, but pragmatically they've actually passed a number of laws, which may or may not pan out to be good, but on paper give greater rights to peasants. They removed one of the main taxes on them, giving them more legal rights to oppose displacement, passed a very good labor law that gives workers basically tenure status. They used to be basically serving at the pleasure of their employers, could be fired without cause. Now they have to have cause, and after a certain period of time they have long-term contracts. Business pundits condemn the law as introducing European-style inflexibility. And this is giving workers some leverage and is actually raising wages.

And, interestingly, there's a long tradition, dating from Tiananmen days, of trying to create an independent trade union movement in China. That has been crushed. That is a non-starter. But the current government has encouraged workers -- well, it said that it wants to see all private -- 80 percent of private firms unionize, but through the All-China Federation of Trade Unions. So I thought this was kind of ridiculous as a state union. But when you actually go to Shenzhen and connect with the underground labor movement, many of whom are suffering from severe repression, usually from local authorities in league with Hong Kong, Taiwanese and local capitalists producing stuff on contract for Wal-Mart, Kmart, everybody else, surprisingly, these underground labor activists and their allies in Hong Kong, some of whom are veterans of Tiananmen, have actually -- their position is that now what has to happen is that they have to renovate the official union and, you know, not take it over, but actually work within it to turn it into a real union that will defend workers' rights.

So there's something interesting going on in response to this rising discontent over the last couple years, whereby the central government is growing concerned about the really wild brutality and corruption of many local governments, the way that's antagonizing workers, the way workers are pushing, pushing, pushing, and they realize there has to be something given to the working class of China. Wages have to rise. And there has to be some modicum of rights for that class, which is, as you say, absolutely essential to the engine of global capitalism.

Juan Gonzalez: But yet, the vast majority of people in China are still in the countryside, right? So what is happening in terms of the peasantry of China?

Christian Parenti: Yeah, in the countryside, one of the main problems people face is, along with environmental degradation is, these continued land grabs. One of the -- the village I profiled in the article was fighting to keep its land because a big state-owned coal company wanted to strip mine it. And so, this is one cause of displacement.

The other thing is that the countryside is still very, very poor. There has been, in the last two decades, the rise of what are called the township and village enterprises, which are these usually kind of hybrid local-, state- plus foreign capital-owned firms, which are providing some industrial work. But due to displacement by industry and poverty, people are leaving the countryside, and they're organizing there. In last year in Anhui, a group of villages refused to pay taxes, and that actually led to the government saying, "OK, we're going to abolish this, this tax law, because the peasants are clearly under serious pressure, and we can, you know, use repression to force them to continue to live in poverty and pay their taxes and ask for serious trouble, or we can just remove this tax and, you know, force employers to actually pay a little bit more." And, you know, ten percent growth for ten years in a row means there is enough money to go around for the working class to -- you know, for there to be greater redistribution through higher wages.

Amy Goodman: Do you feel the Olympics has had an effect on what is going on now in China, this increased international scrutiny, or is there?

Christian Parenti: In terms of international scrutiny, it seems mostly to be around the issue of Tibet and broad human rights stuff. And the issue of labor has not come up that much.

In China, I was struck by the way that the earthquake and the Olympics really re-instilled or reignited an intense nationalism and almost a defensiveness around people who, in many cases, were actually involved in struggles against local authorities and were very apologetic about it. In the article, I discuss these guys who organized basically an independent trade union and had these wildcat strikes, but they're, "Well, no, they weren't protests. They were just big meetings at the factory. We just wanted to communicate with the bosses." And they were like, you know, almost apologetic about opposing the country and causing troubles for the country. So that's one main effect that the Olympics is having internally, is to sort of, you know, change the subject and instill this kind of national state of mind.

Amy Goodman: Well, Naomi Klein, following your line on surveillance in China, let's go back to the United States. We're moving into the conventions. And by the way, Democracy Now! will be there for the Democratic convention in Denver -- we're expanding to two hours -- and in St. Paul, where also we'll be broadcasting two hours every day. But we're just getting word out of Denver, for example, CBS 4 exposed that there are warehouses prepared with pens and barbed wire for jailed protesters, with warnings on the wall: stun guns -- beware of stun gun use.

Naomi Klein: Yeah. And I mean, I think the timing of this is really interesting, that -- you know, that the global sort of media spotlight is going to move from Beijing to Denver to Minneapolis. And we're really going to have an opportunity to actually see how globalized this surveillance state is. And, you know, I really think we're seeing a kind of a global middle ground emerge, where China is becoming more like the United States in very visible ways, and the United States is becoming more like China in less visible ways. So, many of the things that people are really ready to condemn about the surveillance and police state tactics being used in Beijing right now -- the surveillance cameras everywhere, the banning of protests or the pushing of protesters into these protest pens that are empty because people are too afraid to use them, pre-emptive arrests -- you know, we are going to see this in Denver -- unmanned drones and so on. So I think we are very vividly going to see this meeting in the middle, if you will, of these tactics.

Amy Goodman: And in China, the corporations that are involved with supplying China with this surveillance equipment that will be there long after the Olympics?

Naomi Klein: Exactly. This -- you know, one of the things that I think people forget is that it's actually illegal to sell police equipment to China. This was a law passed after Tiananmen Square, precisely to prevent American technology from being used for repressive purposes. And the Olympics have really been just this incredible opportunity for high-tech -- American high-tech surveillance firms, because they've been able somehow to sell police equipment to China, very high-tech police equipment to China, not in the name of domestic policing, but in the name of securing an international sporting event, which of course is attended by the President of the United States, and nobody wants anything bad to happen to him. So, you know, in many ways, the Olympics have provided this backdoor way for all of this American technology and equipment, policing equipment, to flow into China.

And of course, as people like Sharon Hom, head of Human Rights in China, have been saying now for months, all of this equipment is staying in China after the Games. And it will be directed at many of the workers who Christian is talking about.

Amy Goodman: And the corporations involved?

Naomi Klein: Honeywell, IBM, General Electric, Google, Yahoo -- I mean, we've heard about this. But in terms of building the surveillance state, one company to really watch is L1. They are doing the fingerprinting and iris scanning in the United States, and they've been selling this software to Chinese companies that are embedding it in their Golden Shield network.

Amy Goodman is the host of the nationally syndicated radio news program, Democracy Now!

© 2008 Democracy Now! All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95310/

Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance: What to Expect and Why It Really Matters | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

Poverty, Income, and Health Insurance: What to Expect and Why It Really Matters | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet: "Going back to the 1940s, we've never completed an economic expansion where the middle-class family income failed to regain its prior peak."

By Jared Bernstein, Huffington Post
Posted on August 21, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95675/

Every year around this time, the Census Bureau releases one of the most important government reports: the annual status of poverty, household income, and health insurance coverage. The release is scheduled for the morning of August 26th at 10; you can usually watch the press conference over the web if that kind of thing turns you on as much as it does me.

With your approval, I'd like to take you on a pre-release tour of these data, discussing what to expect -- slightly lower poverty and higher median income; less health coverage -- and, more importantly, the context within which to interpret these results.

While 2007 probably seems just so last year, the release is uniquely important ... even historical. That's because 2007 was almost certainly the last year of the 2000s recovery, and the Census release enables us, for the first time, to evaluate how the living standards of middle- and low-income families fared over this recovery. It's not likely to be pretty.

What's that? You already know how they/you did? Good point. But this makes it official, and the release, which generally gets front page status for a day or two, gives us a chance to reflect on an economic expansion that left most people behind. It also happens to be a presidential election year, with the economy front and center in precisely the manner invoked by these data. As I've said in this space before, the candidate who understands this disconnect between growth and living standards, and whose ideas are best crafted to reconnect them ... that's the one who should win.

The first thing you should know about these data is that they refer to calendar year 2007, as the Census Bureau treats insurance coverage and poverty as annual concepts for this report: if your family income was below the official threshold last year, or you went without any kind of health coverage, public or private, for the whole year, they count you as poor or uninsured.

There are known glitches: the poverty concept is way outdated, and is generally agreed to understate the degree of actual material deprivation. In 2006, 12.3% of the population -- 36.5 million people -- were officially poor. But when a couple of statistical scholars put together a more comprehensive, alternative measure, they found a 2006 poverty rate of 17.7%, adding 16 million more persons to the poverty rolls compared to the official measure.

Also, the income measure is pretax, and since taxes have been cut a lot in recent years, a post-tax measure would show more income growth, though this is less important for the middle-class relative to the rich, whose taxes have been cut the most.

So, with all that throat-clearing out of the way, here's what to look for. Wait ... one more caveat. When it comes to forecasting economic reports, econometricians are no better than weather-persons. So, if I get these right, tell everyone. If I'm way off, we never spoke.

  • Poverty probably fell a bit, I'd say to 12.1% (from 12.3% in 2006).
  • Median household income, adjusted for inflation, probably rose about 1%.
  • There are likely more uninsured people, especially due to lost employer coverage.

If the economy's in the tank, why do I think things improved? Because for most of 2007, the economy wasn't in the shape it's in now, and usually -- not always -- in the last year of an expansion, poverty goes down. The key determinants tend to be jobs, wages, and inflation, and all were actually in decent territory until the last quarter of last year. However, things have of course deteriorated since -- we'll get to the 2008 story in a moment.

But here's the first contextual kicker: assuming I'm right about the direction of these results, before anyone uncorks the champagne over the first two of them, consider these facts. Compared to the peak of the last business cycle in the year 2000:

  • A larger share of the population will be poor.
  • Real median household income will be lower.
  • There will be millions more people without health coverage.

(I'm sure about #'s 1 and 3. I could be wrong re #2, but if real household income surpasses the 2000 level, it won't do so by much.)

Remember folks, over these years, productivity was up 19%, growing faster over the 2000s than in the 1990s (on a yearly basis, productivity was up 2.5%, 2000-07, vs. 2% per year in the 1990s; that little 0.5% difference actually means a lot over a few years). The mantra among economists is that as grows productivity, so shall living standards. But in the 2000s, most of the American workforce worked harder and smarter, yet ended up earning less. Looks like we need a new mantra.

Here's the second kicker: last year was as good as is gets for awhile. The historical precedent is extremely clear on this score. In recessions, poverty rises and median income falls. And it's not just recessions. The last few recoveries started out as jobless, meaning the economy as a whole was expanding, but employment was still contracting. Poverty rose and incomes fell for the first few years of the last two recoveries.

The reason for these weak-start recoveries is that labor market conditions are a primary determinant of working/middle-class living standards. These families depend on their paychecks, not their stock portfolios, and with jobs and real wages in decline all year so far, the clear expectation is that middle-class incomes are down in 2008, and poverty is up.

Plugging current conditions into the models, I get poverty back up to 12.4% in 2008, and real median household income down around 1%, a loss of about $600. (For those interested in the sausage-making process, this assumes inflation subsides in the second half of this year; if it stays elevated, that $600 loss could become a $1,000 loss).

Going back to the 1940s, we've never completed an economic expansion where the middle-class family income failed to regain its prior peak (note the subtle switch from 'household' to 'family' income -- the Census family series goes back to the mid-1940s; the household series only goes back to the mid-60s; the main difference is that families exclude one-person units). I can think of no more damning indictment of the current economy -- no better example of how it is broken.

That's why next Tuesday's release is such an important one. True, it's last year's news, but if I'm anywhere close regarding these forecasts, the results will shine a red-hot spotlight on the biggest challenge we face: the disconnect between growth and living standards.

Look for the candidates to release statements based on the findings. Both will distance themselves from the Bush policies that have surely played a role in the disconnect. The problem for McCain is that his economic agenda seems to have been formed by looking approvingly at results like these and deciding the best path forward was to double-down on Bushonomics. He extends the Bush cuts for the wealthy, and throws in a big corporate tax cut for a cherry on top. His health care plan will be much less effective in covering the uninsured.

Obama (for whom I'm an informal advisor) starts with tax relief targeted at the middle and lower income families. After-tax income grows most for the poor under Obama, and most for the rich under McCain (see figure 1 here). Obama offsets the disconnect; McCain exacerbates it.

But tax policy can only offset the disconnect; it can't repair it. For that you need robust job creation, restraints on capital excesses, deep infrastructure investment, single-payer health care, and long-term energy policy with job-creating investments in green tech and alternative energy sources.

So, I hope to join all of you on the Census Bureau website next Tuesday, August 26th. I recognize that my forecasting prowess is on the line, but somehow, I think the stakes are a little higher than that. The release and the analysis surrounding it should provide a close and critical look about where we've been and we're we need to go.

Jared Bernstein is a senior economist and director of the Living Standards Program at the Economic Policy Institute in Washington D.C.

© 2008 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95675/

Meet the Economist Who Thinks We're Doomed | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet

Meet the Economist Who Thinks We're Doomed | Corporate Accountability and WorkPlace | AlterNet: "Dr. Nouriel Roubini believes we face a housing bust, a huge credit crisis, an oil shock and a deep recession. Just for starts."

By Stephen Mihm, The New York Times
Posted on August 18, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95375/

On Sept. 7, 2006, Nouriel Roubini, an economics professor at New York University, stood before an audience of economists at the International Monetary Fund and announced that a crisis was brewing. In the coming months and years, he warned, the United States was likely to face a once-in-a-lifetime housing bust, an oil shock, sharply declining consumer confidence and, ultimately, a deep recession. He laid out a bleak sequence of events: homeowners defaulting on mortgages, trillions of dollars of mortgage-backed securities unraveling worldwide and the global financial system shuddering to a halt. These developments, he went on, could cripple or destroy hedge funds, investment banks and other major financial institutions like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The audience seemed skeptical, even dismissive. As Roubini stepped down from the lectern after his talk, the moderator of the event quipped, "I think perhaps we will need a stiff drink after that." People laughed -- and not without reason. At the time, unemployment and inflation remained low, and the economy, while weak, was still growing, despite rising oil prices and a softening housing market. And then there was the espouser of doom himself: Roubini was known to be a perpetual pessimist, what economists call a "permabear." When the economist Anirvan Banerji delivered his response to Roubini's talk, he noted that Roubini's predictions did not make use of mathematical models and dismissed his hunches as those of a career naysayer.

But Roubini was soon vindicated. In the year that followed, subprime lenders began entering bankruptcy, hedge funds began going under and the stock market plunged. There was declining employment, a deteriorating dollar, ever-increasing evidence of a huge housing bust and a growing air of panic in financial markets as the credit crisis deepened. By late summer, the Federal Reserve was rushing to the rescue, making the first of many unorthodox interventions in the economy, including cutting the lending rate by 50 basis points and buying up tens of billions of dollars in mortgage-backed securities. When Roubini returned to the I.M.F. last September, he delivered a second talk, predicting a growing crisis of solvency that would infect every sector of the financial system. This time, no one laughed. "He sounded like a madman in 2006," recalls the I.M.F. economist Prakash Loungani, who invited Roubini on both occasions. "He was a prophet when he returned in 2007."

Over the past year, whenever optimists have declared the worst of the economic crisis behind us, Roubini has countered with steadfast pessimism. In February, when the conventional wisdom held that the venerable investment firms of Wall Street would weather the crisis, Roubini warned that one or more of them would go "belly up" -- and six weeks later, Bear Stearns collapsed. Following the Fed's further extraordinary actions in the spring -- including making lines of credit available to selected investment banks and brokerage houses -- many economists made note of the ensuing economic rally and proclaimed the credit crisis over and a recession averted. Roubini, who dismissed the rally as nothing more than a "delusional complacency" encouraged by a "bunch of self-serving spinmasters," stuck to his script of "nightmare" events: waves of corporate bankrupticies, collapses in markets like commercial real estate and municipal bonds and, most alarming, the possible bankruptcy of a large regional or national bank that would trigger a panic by depositors. Not all of these developments have come to pass (and perhaps never will), but the demise last month of the California bank IndyMac -- one of the largest such failures in U.S. history -- drew only more attention to Roubini's seeming prescience.

As a result, Roubini, a respected but formerly obscure academic, has become a major figure in the public debate about the economy: the seer who saw it coming. He has been summoned to speak before Congress, the Council on Foreign Relations and the World Economic Forum at Davos. He is now a sought-after adviser, spending much of his time shuttling between meetings with central bank governors and finance ministers in Europe and Asia. Though he continues to issue colorful doomsday prophecies of a decidedly nonmainstream sort -- especially on his popular and polemical blog, where he offers visions of "equity market slaughter" and the "Coming Systemic Bust of the U.S. Banking System" -- the mainstream economic establishment appears to be moving closer, however fitfully, to his way of seeing things. "I have in the last few months become more pessimistic than the consensus," the former Treasury secretary Lawrence Summers told me earlier this year. "Certainly, Nouriel's writings have been a contributor to that."

On a cold and dreary day last winter, I met Roubini over lunch in the TriBeCa neighborhood of New York City. "I'm not a pessimist by nature," he insisted. "I'm not someone who sees things in a bleak way." Just looking at him, I found the assertion hard to credit. With a dour manner and an aura of gloom about him, Roubini gives the impression of being permanently pained, as if the burden of what he knows is almost too much for him to bear. He rarely smiles, and when he does, his face, topped by an unruly mop of brown hair, contorts into something more closely resembling a grimace.

When I pressed him on his claim that he wasn't pessimistic, he paused for a moment and then relented a little. "I have more concerns about potential risks and vulnerabilities than most people," he said, with glum understatement. But these concerns, he argued, make him more of a realist than a pessimist and put him in the role of the cleareyed outsider -- unsettling complacency and puncturing pieties.

Roubini, who is 50, has been an outsider his entire life. He was born in Istanbul, the child of Iranian Jews, and his family moved to Tehran when he was 2, then to Tel Aviv and finally to Italy, where he grew up and attended college. He moved to the United States to pursue his doctorate in international economics at Harvard. Along the way he became fluent in Farsi, Hebrew, Italian and English. His accent, an inimitable polyglot growl, radiates a weariness that comes with being what he calls a "global nomad."

As a graduate student at Harvard, Roubini was an unusual talent, according to his adviser, the Columbia economist Jeffrey Sachs. He was as comfortable in the world of arcane mathematics as he was studying political and economic institutions. "It's a mix of skills that rarely comes packaged in one person," Sachs told me. After completing his Ph.D. in 1988, Roubini joined the economics department at Yale, where he first met and began sharing ideas with Robert Shiller, the economist now known for his prescient warnings about the 1990s tech bubble.

The '90s were an eventful time for an international economist like Roubini. Throughout the decade, one emerging economy after another was beset by crisis, beginning with Mexico's in 1994. Panics swept Asia, including Thailand, Indonesia and Korea, in 1997 and 1998. The economies of Brazil and Russia imploded in 1998. Argentina's followed in 2000. Roubini began studying these countries and soon identified what he saw as their common weaknesses. On the eve of the crises that befell them, he noticed, most had huge current-account deficits (meaning, basically, that they spent far more than they made), and they typically financed these deficits by borrowing from abroad in ways that exposed them to the national equivalent of bank runs. Most of these countries also had poorly regulated banking systems plagued by excessive borrowing and reckless lending. Corporate governance was often weak, with cronyism in abundance.

Roubini's work was distinguished not only by his conclusions but also by his approach. By making extensive use of transnational comparisons and historical analogies, he was employing a subjective, nontechnical framework, the sort embraced by popular economists like the Times Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman and Joseph Stiglitz in order to reach a nonacademic audience. Roubini takes pains to note that he remains a rigorous scholarly economist -- "When I weigh evidence," he told me, "I'm drawing on 20 years of accumulated experience using models" -- but his approach is not the contemporary scholarly ideal in which an economist builds a model in order to constrain his subjective impressions and abide by a discrete set of data. As Shiller told me, "Nouriel has a different way of seeing things than most economists: he gets into everything."

Roubini likens his style to that of a policy maker like Alan Greenspan, the former Fed chairman who was said (perhaps apocryphally) to pore over vast quantities of technical economic data while sitting in the bathtub, looking to sniff out where the economy was headed. Roubini also cites, as a more ideologically congenial example, the sweeping, cosmopolitan approach of the legendary economist John Maynard Keynes, whom Roubini, with only slight exaggeration, calls "the most brilliant economist who never wrote down an equation." The book that Roubini ultimately wrote (with the economist Brad Setser) on the emerging market crises, "Bailouts or Bail-Ins?" contains not a single equation in its 400-plus pages.

After analyzing the markets that collapsed in the '90s, Roubini set out to determine which country's economy would be the next to succumb to the same pressures. His surprising answer: the United States'. "The United States," Roubini remembers thinking, "looked like the biggest emerging market of all." Of course, the United States wasn't an emerging market; it was (and still is) the largest economy in the world. But Roubini was unnerved by what he saw in the U.S. economy, in particular its 2004 current-account deficit of $600 billion. He began writing extensively about the dangers of that deficit and then branched out, researching the various effects of the credit boom -- including the biggest housing bubble in the nation's history -- that began after the Federal Reserve cut rates to close to zero in 2003. Roubini became convinced that the housing bubble was going to pop.

By late 2004 he had started to write about a "nightmare hard landing scenario for the United States." He predicted that foreign investors would stop financing the fiscal and current-account deficit and abandon the dollar, wreaking havoc on the economy. He said that these problems, which he called the "twin financial train wrecks," might manifest themselves in 2005 or, at the latest, 2006. "You have been warned here first," he wrote ominously on his blog. But by the end of 2006, the train wrecks hadn't occurred.

Recessions are signal events in any modern economy. And yet remarkably, the profession of economics is quite bad at predicting them. A recent study looked at "consensus forecasts" (the predictions of large groups of economists) that were made in advance of 60 different national recessions that hit around the world in the '90s: in 97 percent of the cases, the study found, the economists failed to predict the coming contraction a year in advance. On those rare occasions when economists did successfully predict recessions, they significantly underestimated the severity of the downturns. Worse, many of the economists failed to anticipate recessions that occurred as soon as two months later.

The dismal science, it seems, is an optimistic profession. Many economists, Roubini among them, argue that some of the optimism is built into the very machinery, the mathematics, of modern economic theory. Econometric models typically rely on the assumption that the near future is likely to be similar to the recent past, and thus it is rare that the models anticipate breaks in the economy. And if the models can't foresee a relatively minor break like a recession, they have even more trouble modeling and predicting a major rupture like a full-blown financial crisis. Only a handful of 20th-century economists have even bothered to study financial panics. (The most notable example is probably the late economist Hyman Minksy, of whom Roubini is an avid reader.) "These are things most economists barely understand," Roubini told me. "We're in uncharted territory where standard economic theory isn't helpful."

True though this may be, Roubini's critics do not agree that his approach is any more accurate. Anirvan Banerji, the economist who challenged Roubini's first I.M.F. talk, points out that Roubini has been peddling pessimism for years; Banerji contends that Roubini's apparent foresight is nothing more than an unhappy coincidence of events. "Even a stopped clock is right twice a day," he told me. "The justification for his bearish call has evolved over the years," Banerji went on, ticking off the different reasons that Roubini has used to justify his predictions of recessions and crises: rising trade deficits, exploding current-account deficits, Hurricane Katrina, soaring oil prices. All of Roubini's predictions, Banerji observed, have been based on analogies with past experience. "This forecasting by analogy is a tempting thing to do," he said. "But you have to pick the right analogy. The danger of this more subjective approach is that instead of letting the objective facts shape your views, you will choose the facts that confirm your existing views."

Kenneth Rogoff, an economist at Harvard who has known Roubini for decades, told me that he sees great value in Roubini's willingness to entertain possible situations that are far outside the consensus view of most economists. "If you're sitting around at the European Central Bank," he said, "and you're asking what's the worst thing that could happen, the first thing people will say is, 'Let's see what Nouriel says.' " But Rogoff cautioned against equating that skill with forecasting. Roubini, in other words, might be the kind of economist you want to consult about the possibility of the collapse of the municipal-bond market, but he is not necessarily the kind you ask to predict, say, the rise in global demand for paper clips.

His defenders contend that Roubini is not unduly pessimistic. Jeffrey Sachs, his former adviser, told me that "if the underlying conditions call for optimism, Nouriel would be optimistic." And to be sure, Roubini is capable of being optimistic -- or at least of steering clear of absolute worst-case prognostications. He agrees, for example, with the conventional economic wisdom that oil will drop below $100 a barrel in the coming months as global demand weakens. "I'm not comfortable saying that we're going to end up in the Great Depression," he told me. "I'm a reasonable person."

What economic developments does Roubini see on the horizon? And what does he think we should do about them? The first step, he told me in a recent conversation, is to acknowledge the extent of the problem. "We are in a recession, and denying it is nonsense," he said. When Jim Nussle, the White House budget director, announced last month that the nation had "avoided a recession," Roubini was incredulous. For months, he has been predicting that the United States will suffer through an 18-month recession that will eventually rank as the "worst since the Great Depression." Though he is confident that the economy will enter a technical recovery toward the end of next year, he says that job losses, corporate bankruptcies and other drags on growth will continue to take a toll for years.

Roubini has counseled various policy makers, including Federal Reserve governors and senior Treasury Department officials, to mount an aggressive response to the crisis. He applauded when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to 2 percent from 5.25 percent beginning last summer. He also supported the Fed's willingness to engineer a takeover of Bear Stearns. Roubini argues that the Fed's actions averted catastrophe, though he says he believes that future bailouts should focus on mortgage owners, not investors. Accordingly, he sees the choice facing the United States as stark but simple: either the government backs up a trillion-plus dollars' worth of high-risk mortgages (in exchange for the lenders' agreement to reduce monthly mortgage payments), or the banks and other institutions holding those mortgages -- or the complex securities derived from them -- go under. "You either nationalize the banks or you nationalize the mortgages," he said. "Otherwise, they're all toast."

For months Roubini has been arguing that the true cost of the housing crisis will not be a mere $300 billion -- the amount allowed for by the housing legislation sponsored by Representative Barney Frank and Senator Christopher Dodd -- but something between a trillion and a trillion and a half dollars. But most important, in Roubini's opinion, is to realize that the problem is deeper than the housing crisis. "Reckless people have deluded themselves that this was a subprime crisis," he told me. "But we have problems with credit-card debt, student-loan debt, auto loans, commercial real estate loans, home-equity loans, corporate debt and loans that financed leveraged buyouts." All of these forms of debt, he argues, suffer from some or all of the same traits that first surfaced in the housing market: shoddy underwriting, securitization, negligence on the part of the credit-rating agencies and lax government oversight. "We have a subprime financial system," he said, "not a subprime mortgage market."

Roubini argues that most of the losses from this bad debt have yet to be written off, and the toll from bad commercial real estate loans alone may help send hundreds of local banks into the arms of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. "A good third of the regional banks won't make it," he predicted. In turn, these bailouts will add hundreds of billions of dollars to an already gargantuan federal debt, and someone, somewhere, is going to have to finance that debt, along with all the other debt accumulated by consumers and corporations. "Our biggest financiers are China, Russia and the gulf states," Roubini noted. "These are rivals, not allies."

The United States, Roubini went on, will likely muddle through the crisis but will emerge from it a different nation, with a different place in the world. "Once you run current-account deficits, you depend on the kindness of strangers," he said, pausing to let out a resigned sigh. "This might be the beginning of the end of the American empire."

© 2008 The New York Times

AlterNet is making this New York Times material available in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107: This article is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Stephen Mihm, an assistant professor of economic history at the University of Georgia, is the author of "A Nation of Counterfeiters: Capitalists, Con Men and the Making of the United States." His last feature article for the magazine was about North Korean counterfeiting.

© 2008 The New York Times All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95375/

cryptogon.com » Archives » A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading

cryptogon.com » Archives » A Few Speculators Dominate Vast Market for Oil Trading

Via: Washington Post:

Regulators had long classified a private Swiss energy conglomerate called Vitol as a trader that primarily helped industrial firms that needed oil to run their businesses.

But when the Commodity Futures Trading Commission examined Vitol’s books last month, it found that the firm was in fact more of a speculator, holding oil contracts as a profit-making investment rather than a means of lining up the actual delivery of fuel. Even more surprising to the commodities markets was the massive size of Vitol’s portfolio — at one point in July, the firm held 11 percent of all the oil contracts on the regulated New York Mercantile Exchange.

The discovery revealed how an individual financial player had gained enormous sway over the oil market without the knowledge of regulators. Other CFTC data showed that a significant amount of trading activity was concentrated in the hands of just a few speculators.

The CFTC, which learned about the nature of Vitol’s activities only after making an unusual request for data from the firm, now reports that financial firms speculating for their clients or for themselves account for about 81 percent of the oil contracts on NYMEX, a far bigger share than had previously been stated by the agency. That figure may rise in coming weeks as the CFTC checks the status of other big traders.

Some lawmakers have blamed these firms for the volatility of oil prices, including the tremendous run-up that peaked earlier in the summer.

“It is now evident that speculators in the energy futures markets play a much larger role than previously thought, and it is now even harder to accept the agency’s laughable assertion that excessive speculation has not contributed to rising energy prices,” said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.). He added that it was “difficult to comprehend how the CFTC would allow a trader” to acquire such a large oil inventory “and not scrutinize this position any sooner.”

The CFTC, which refrains from naming specific traders in its reports, did not publicly identify Vitol.

The agency’s report showed only the size of the holdings of an unnamed trader. Vitol’s identity as that trader was confirmed by two industry sources with direct knowledge of the matter.

CFTC documents show Vitol was one of the most active traders of oil on NYMEX as prices reached record levels. By June 6, for instance, Vitol had acquired a huge holding in oil contracts, betting prices would rise. The contracts were equal to 57.7 million barrels of oil — about three times the amount the United States consumes daily. That day, the price of oil spiked $11 to settle at $138.54. Oil prices eventually peaked at $147.27 a barrel on July 11 before falling back to settle at $114.98 yesterday.

The documents do not say how much Vitol put down to acquire this position, but under NYMEX rules, the down payment could have been as little as $1 billion, with the company borrowing the rest.

The biggest players on the commodity exchanges often operate as “swap dealers” who primarily invest on behalf of hedge funds, wealthy individuals and pension funds, allowing these investors to enjoy returns without having to buy an actual contract for oil or other goods. Some dealers also manage commodity trading for commercial firms.

To build up the vast holdings this practice entails, some swap dealers have maneuvered behind the scenes, exploiting their political influence and gaps in oversight to gain exemptions from regulatory limits and permission to set up new, unregulated markets. Many big traders are active not only on NYMEX but also on private and overseas markets beyond the CFTC’s purview. These openings have given the firms nearly unfettered access to the trading of vital goods, including oil, cotton and corn.

Using swap dealers as middlemen, investment funds have poured into the commodity markets, raising their holdings to $260 billion this year from $13 billion in 2003. During that same period, the price of crude oil rose unabated every year.

CFTC data show that at the end of July, just four swap dealers held one-third of all NYMEX oil contracts that bet prices would increase. Dealers make trades that forecast prices will either rise or fall. Energy analysts say these data are evidence of the concentration of power in the markets.

CFTC leaders have argued that speculators are not influencing commodities’ prices. If any new information arises during the agency’s examination of swap dealer activity, officials said they would report it to Congress.

“To date, the CFTC has found that supply and demand fundamentals offer the best explanation for the systematic rise in oil prices,” CFTC spokesman R. David Gary said, reading a statement that had been crafted by agency officials. “Regardless of their classification . . . the CFTC’s market surveillance group scrutinizes daily the positions of all large traders, both commercial and non-commercial, to guard against market manipulation.”

Victoria Dix, a spokeswoman for Vitol, declined to answer questions. The firm, through Dix, released a statement that stated only that it had not been contacted by the CFTC about the reclassification of its business and that its trading status remained unchanged. CFTC officials said they do not typically contact firms that are reclassified.

On its Web site, the firm says it has $100 billion a year in revenue and describes its thriving global energy-trading business.

For most of the past century, regulators put limits on financial actors to prevent them from dominating commodity exchanges, which were much smaller than the bond or stock markets. Only commercial operations, such as farms, airlines, manufacturers and the middlemen that handle their trading activities, were allowed to buy nearly unlimited quantities. The goal was to allow these businesses to minimize the effect of price swings.

The first major change to this regulatory framework occurred in 1991, when Goldman Sachs, through a subsidiary called J. Aron, argued that it should be granted the same exemption given to commercial traders because its business of buying commodities on behalf of investors was similar to the middlemen who broker commodity transactions for commercial firms.

The CFTC granted this request. More exemptions soon followed, including one to the Houston-based energy trader Enron.

“When the CFTC granted the 1991 hedging exemption to J. Aron (a division of Goldman Sachs), it signaled a major shift that has since allowed investors to accumulate enormous positions for purely speculative purposes,” said Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) Now, he added, “legitimate businesses that hedge and take physical delivery of oil are being trampled by the speculators who are in the market purely to make profit.”

A second turning point came when Congress passed the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000. The law formally allowed investors to trade energy commodities on private electronic platforms outside the purview of regulators. Critics have called this piece of legislation the “Enron loophole,” saying Enron played a role in crafting it.

In the months after the act was passed, private electronic trading platforms sprang up across the country, challenging the dominance of NYMEX.

“Investment banks had been frustrated with the established exchange because they really were never able to get control of it,” said Michael Greenberger, a law professor at the University of Maryland and a former staff member at the CFTC.

The most successful of the private platforms was InterContinental Exchange, or ICE, founded by Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley and a few other big brokerages in 2000. ICE soon opened a trading platform in London, allowing its founders to trade vast quantities of U.S. oil overseas without being subject to regulation.

The exemptions for swap dealers and the development of overseas markets allowed big brokerages to open the door for more hedge funds, pensions and big investors to move into commodities.

In the coming years, commodity investments by funds could grow to $1 trillion, veteran hedge fund manager Michael Masters said in testimony before the Senate earlier this year. In an interview, he said this trend could raise commodity prices for everyone in the coming years and “have catastrophic economic effects on millions of already stressed U.S. consumers.”

Meanwhile, commodities have been good business for big Wall Street brokerages. Its commodity trades helped keep Goldman Sachs profitable during the credit crisis, said Richard Bove, a banking analyst at Ladenburg Thalmann.

“Business is lousy right now,” Bowie said of Goldman Sachs. “Commodities and currencies are clearly the strongest business they have right now.”

In the coming months, swap dealers expect to have yet another venue for oil speculation. The CFTC has stated it would not stand in the way of trading in U.S. oil contracts overseas in Dubai. Goldman Sachs and Vitol are among the major investors in this new exchange.

Johann Hari: John McCain and his secretive plot to 'kill the UN' - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

Johann Hari: John McCain and his secretive plot to 'kill the UN' - Johann Hari, Commentators - The Independent

Does John McCain have a "hidden agenda" to "kill the UN"? That's what the man who devised McCain's big set-piece foreign policy proposal says – and he's delighted it is sailing silently through the presidential election campaign towards success.

This story begins with a Republican presidential candidate who, despite the hype, doesn't seem to know much about foreign affairs. McCain recently talked at length about problems on the "Iraq/Pakistan border" – the countries are a thousand miles apart. Asked how to deal with Darfur, he mused about "bringing pressure on the government of Somalia". Uh – it's Sudan, Senator McCain. And he keeps expressing his desire to build up US relations with Czechoslovakia, a country that hasn't existed for 15 years.

But McCain does know one thing: he doesn't like the United Nations. He championed George Bush's appointment of John Bolton as US ambassador to the UN – precisely because Bolton scorns the UN as "irrelevant" and "a twilight zone". He even announced "there is no such thing as the United Nations". It was like appointing Marilyn Manson as ambassador to the Vatican. This is part of a long seam of thinking on the American right: they opposed Franklin D Roosevelt's spearheading of the United Nations as a fetter on American power, and have never been properly reconciled to it. Republican congresses have refused to authorise US dues to the UN – so there is now a backlog of $2.8bn (£1.5bn) outstanding.

Yet McCain cannot oppose the UN outright – because the American people support it so passionately. Contrary to the yokel-myth, a typical opinion poll – by Global Public Opinion – just found that 64 per cent of Americans think the UN is doing a good job, compared to just 28 per cent who support George Bush. Some 72 per cent of Americans want the UN to play a bigger role.

So McCain has decided to build up an innocuous-sounding alternative called a "League of Democracies". It would be an alliance of countries the US labels democratic that can be used to legitimise US military actions. Charles Krauthammer, the conservative journalist who invented the plan, says: "What I like about it is, it's got a hidden agenda. It looks as if it's about listening and joining with allies... except the idea here, which McCain can't say but I can, is to essentially kill the UN. Nobody's going to walk out of the UN. There's a lot of emotional attachment to it in the US. How do you kill it? You create a parallel institution." Gradually – over decades – McCain hopes it would make the UN wither away.

Any response needs to start by admitting the UN has serious imperfections. Its structure is absurdly antiquated, with the permanent members of the Security Council frozen as the winners of the Second World War. The Human Rights Commission became an obscenity, offering places to Sudan and Saudi Arabia. There have been some horrible scandals in the past decade: UN peacekeepers who commit sexual abuse still aren't properly investigated, and some of them cut corrupt deals with the murderous Congolese militias they were supposed to stop. Even Kofi Annan's son Kojo has been involved in some dubious dealings.

Those of us who support the UN should be more outraged by these failures than anyone else. But the US government has also committed horrible abuses and been riddled with corruption – and nobody suggests the solution is to abolish it. No: it is to make it live up to its greatest ideals.

In addition to these real flaws, the UN is too often used as a bright blue punch-bag for any old complaint about the state of the world. For example, the UN is routinely blamed for not intervening in Burma, or Zimbabwe, or Georgia – but the UN has no army of its own; it is only as good as its members. Blaming the UN for these failures is like blaming Wembley Stadium when your football team loses a match.

The UN's positive achievements are almost never mentioned. It was the UN vaccination programme that abolished smallpox – an agonising disease that killed hundreds of millions of people – from the human condition. It was the UN that talked Kennedy and Khrushchev back from the brink when they were poised to incinerate the Earth.

The League would not even live up to its limited pro-democracy billing. If you study McCain's foreign policy statements, you find that for him "democracy" doesn't mean a free and openly elected leader. No: it means a leader who supports US demands.

You can see this if you compare McCain's reactions over the past fortnight to two different separatist movements: in Georgia and Bolivia. When it comes to Georgia, he says it is obscene for South Ossetians to secede from a country they never felt part of, and have never been directly ruled by. He orders the people there to decline the support of the foul Putin regime next door and remain glued to the government of Georgia, against their will, for the sake of keeping the country together. However, when it comes to Bolivia, he actively encourages separatism. The Bush administration – with McCain's support – has been lavishing cash on separatists in the gas-rich regions of this South American country in the hope that they will declare independence.

Why does McCain think separatism is "evil" in one part of the world, and "necessary" in the other? The answer lies in the ground. In Georgia, the democratic-but-dissident-bashing government lets the US control the oil and gas that pass through. In Bolivia, the impeccably democratic government of Evo Morales wants to control it on their own. Morales is asking US gas companies to pay their fair share, and using the proceeds to lift his own people out of poverty. For that, he is dubbed "authoritarian".

So there's McCain's definition of democracy: if you let us control your resources, you're a democracy. If you try to control your resources yourself, you're a dictatorship. Those of us who believe democracy is the most precious political value of all should be repelled to see it reduced to a propaganda term.

On an increasingly multipolar planet that has begun to disastrously heat up, the need for a shared set of rules we can all push our leaders to obey is greater than ever. But how do we make it work? We need to look beyond the cagey centrism of Obama – still too determined by America's oil addiction, and the capturing of its politics by big money – to genuinely radical ideas.

Albert Einstein thought the UN General Assembly should be directly elected, and in turn appoint the Security Council. This would create an even greater pro-UN momentum all over the world; and its peoples would immediately look to it in any crisis. The vision of a Parliament of Man is obviously distant, but it is a shimmering goal to begin progressing towards. John McCain would slap us back in the opposite direction – towards a Hobbesian chaos regulated only by raw American power.

j.hari@independent.co.uk

Lawsuit Alleges Priest Molested Boy at 2005 White Sox Game [Major League Baseball]

Lawsuit Alleges Priest Molested Boy at 2005 White Sox Game [Major League Baseball]


The lawsuit was filed against the Chicago Archdiocese yesterday. The alleged molester, priest Daniel McCormick, has already been the subject of a lawsuit settled on behalf of the archdiocese last week. In that case 11 priests were sued by 16 children. The alleged molestation occured in August of 2005 which was, of course, the year the Chicago White Sox finally won a World Series.

The lawsuit claims McCormack molested the unnamed boy at Our Lady of the Westside School in September 2004 and again at a White Sox game in August 2005. Archdiocese spokeswoman Colleen Dolan said the lawsuit is "not a new case" of abuse. She said the lawsuit is the "finalization of a legal process on this particular case."

Remember back when you were a kid and it was cool to see nuns at baseball games? Well, that's still cool. Priests at White Sox games...not so much.

Family of alleged McCormack victim sues archdiocese [Chicago Sun-Times]
Priests and White Sox games may not mix well [Land of Dave Corzine]













Comcast: Fire Destroyed Your Cable Box? Pay Up. [Insurance]

Here's one more thing to worry about when a fire destroys your home — Comcast.

From NBC 10:

Fire victims from the Riverwalk at Millennium condominium complex told NBC10 and the property management of the apartment complex that Comcast is going to charge residents to replace any cable boxes destroyed in the fire.

NBC 10 contacted Comcast and the company said it's true.

Fire victims will have to cover the cost, but residents should get reimbursed by their insurance companies, whether they are renters or homeowners.

How much will fire victims have to pay?

"We don't share specific information about our costs, but they can vary depending on the type of box — HD boxes, Digital Video Recorder, etc. We're doing all we can to accommodate our customers who were affected by the fire," a Comcast spokes person said.

"They have agreed to extend the due date for charges related to the damaged boxes until Nov. 15, which does allow the insurance companies for these residents time to process the claim and provide residents with funds for which to pay that due," said Lauren McDonald from Riverwalk Property

Comcast says they're not going to bill the fire victims for the cable they're not watching and will waive future installation fees.

Comcast Charging Residents For Equipment Lost In Condo Fire [NBC 10] (Thanks, Steve !)
Conshohocken Apartment Fire Ruled Accidental
[MyFoxPhilly]
(Photo: WTXF )


Ogden Walking Tour Sunday

2008_8_21.ogden.jpgForgotten Chicago, a website dedicated to the city's historical and oft-overlooked nooks and crannies, is organizing a walking tour of Ogden Avenue in Lincoln Park this weekend.

On this tour, we'll show you every remnant of the former street, and discuss the reasons for its extension and removal. We'll take a look at the surrounding environment, including a portion of a demolished bridge, a former coach yard, marginalized and "converted" industry, and one of the most notorious public housing projects in the world.

All of these elements and more are part of the story of Ogden avenue, one of the oddest parts of Chicago's built environment.

FC's Serhii Chrucky tells us "the purpose of the tours is to get people involved with what we're doing, and to show the content in context, rather than as a static web-object." The tour starts at noon on Sunday, and you need to reserve a spot. There's a $5 suggested donation, and you can learn more about Ogden Avenue here.


Create Free iPhone Ringtones Using iTunes in Windows

Create Free iPhone Ringtones Using iTunes in Windows

http://cybernetnews.com/2008/08/21/cybernotes-create-free-iphone-ringtones-using-itunes-in-windows/#more-14702

One of the things that Apple hasn’t made easy for iPhone owners is providing a way to create custom ringtones in Windows. If you’re a Mac owner you can use GarageBand, but Apple doesn’t provide that application on Windows. Instead what they expect you to do is purchase a song for $0.99, and then convert it to a ringtone for another $0.99.

As it turns out in a few steps you can actually convert a DRM-free song into a ringtone using only iTunes in Windows. The trick also works for Mac users, but using GarageBand is a lot simpler so we’re focusing primarily on the Windows side.

Here’s what you need to do:

  1. Start iTunes and find the [DRM-free] song you want to convert to a ringtone. Right-click on it and select the Get Info option.
    itunes ringtone get info.png
  2. On the Options tab locate the Start Time and End Time options. This is where you want to specify the portion of the song you wanted converted into a ringtone. Check both of the boxes, and make sure your ringtone is under 30-seconds. Press OK when finished.
    itunes ringtone time.png
  3. Right-click on the song you just modified, and choose the Convert to AAC option. If you don’t see this in the context menu navigate to Edit -> Preferences -> Advanced -> Importing, and make sure the AAC Encoder is selected in the Import Using menu.
    itunes ringtone aac.png
  4. Once the song has finished being converted to the new format it will appear in your music list, and the “Time” should reflect the correct duration of the ringtone (which should be less than 30-seconds). Now navigate to your iTunes music folder to find the converted song. Here’s an example of where my Green Day ringtone was located:
    itunes ringtone folder.png
  5. Make sure you’re able to see the file’s extension (.M4A) like in the screenshot above. If you don’t see the extension go to Tools -> Folder Options -> View, and uncheck the Hide extensions for known file types box. Then click OK.
  6. Copy the music file (with the .M4A extension) to your desktop. Once you’ve done that rename the file’s extension to .M4R which will make iTunes recognize it as a ringtone.
    itunes ringtone m4r.png
  7. In iTunes go to File -> Add File to Library, and then browse for the file from step 6. Once you’ve selected it press the Open button. iTunes will place the ringtone in the respective section in your library:
    itunes ringtone library.png
  8. Sync your iPhone with iTunes and your newly created ringtone should get transferred over. If it doesn’t be sure to check the Ringtones tab in the iPhone configuration section of iTunes to verify that it is setup to sync your ringtones.

That’s all there is to it. Now you can save yourself a bunch of money on ringtones. A big thanks to the Apple Blog who assembled the original instructions on how to do this for the Mac!

Comcast to slow down heaviest 'Net users to DSL speeds

Comcast to slow down heaviest 'Net users to DSL speeds

The FCC yesterday issued its Order officially directing Comcast to stop using its current P2P-focused delaying technology to relieve network congestion. The company has until the end of the year to switch to a new throttling system that doesn't discriminate based on protocol, and Comcast is now offering more details about how it will do this. Heavy Comcast Internet users: prepare to be deprioritized.

Nothing about Comcast's proposed "protocol agnostic approach" is new; the company has talked it up for months and is already running trials of the technology in Virginia, Florida, and Colorado, testing various approaches and pieces of equipment. Many of the questions surrounding the approach remain unanswered, but Comcast has settled on a basic approach that will "deprioritize" the packets of the heaviest users during periods of network congestion.

Comcast Senior Vice President Mitch Bowling explained the idea to Bloomberg News yesterday, but offered no details except to say that the deprioritization would only drop perceived speeds to the level of a "really good DSL experience.” Interesting, but what does that mean, exactly?

We checked in with Comcast for more details and learned that protocol agnostic system currently being trialed works in a "dynamic and realtime" fashion, according to spokesperson Charlie Douglas. A user's history has nothing to do with it; when the network equipment detects a state approaching congestion, it identifies the heaviest current users of the system based on their last few minutes of use and then deprioritizes their packets for periods of between 10 and 20 minutes. Only total bandwidth is used to make the calculation, not the use of particular protocols apps or protocols.

While the consumer experience for these users will feel like a slowdown, Comcast stresses that it isn't changing the boot file in the modem. The user's connection to the central office will continue at it normal speeds, but packets sent to and from that user will be treated with a lower priority that could result in delays relative to other users on the network. As the company explains it, the speed of the connection will remain the same, but a customer's ability to access bandwidth will change.

Beyond that, questions remain to be sorted out, which is one of the main purposes of the trials. Douglas says that Comcast hasn't decided whether the "heavy users" will be chosen based on upload speeds, download speeds, or a combination of both. The same uncertainty surrounds the issue of whether the deprioritization will affect only packets going in a certain direction or all packets headed to/from a particular IP address.

20 percent of Comcast's network should be upgraded to the much faster DOCSIS 3.0 technology by the end of this year, and as the rollout continues, it may affect the way that Comcast runs its congestion system. DOCSIS 3.0 is far faster than existing technology, of course, which could relieve some of the last-mile congestion pressure that currently affects cable systems. Beyond the simple speed boost, though, DOCSIS 3.0 uses two cards in the central office, one for uploads and one for downloads. Older DOCSIS deployments used a single card for both, and Douglas says that the newer system provides more options for management.

Mexico outraged over corrupt police, kidnappings :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: World

Mexico outraged over corrupt police, kidnappings :: CHICAGO SUN-TIMES :: World


Become a member of our community!


Find out more aboutjump2webView today's jump2web features jump2web

TOP STORIES ::
Obama's half-brother to Vanity Fair: 'No one knows I exist'

Abbott Labs cutting jobs

Cracked molar, emotions can't stop Big Z, Cubs

Backstreet's back — but now there are four

Feds release online database with death rates


VIDEO :: MORE »




Mexico outraged over corrupt police, kidnappings

August 21, 2008

MEXICO CITY---- After kidnappers in police uniforms set up a fake checkpoint to snatch 14-year-old Fernando Marti off a Mexico City street, his businessman father paid hundreds of thousands of dollars in ransom, and waited for his son's safe return.

Instead, the boy and his driver turned up dead, their bodies found in car trunks. Days later, prosecutors alleged that a police detective was a key participant in the kidnapping plot.

The suspicions of police involvement in kidnap-killings have moved a nation where many had grown numb to kidnappings and the drug cartels' beheadings and midday shootouts. Mass street protests are planned in several cities, and some lawmakers are even changing their minds about opposition to capital punishment.

''They should put their eyes out, so they can't commit any more crimes,'' said Ignacio Noriega, a 26-year-old university student who says he no longer feels safe anywhere. ''Prison isn't a solution anymore. They just form their own gangs inside prison and come out stronger.''

As the government convened a national security meeting Thursday to deal with the problem, police reported that 150 residents of a community just west of Mexico City savagely beat and threatened to kill two alleged thieves before handing them over to state police.

The administration of President Felipe Calderon is considering tough new anti-crime measures such as separate, more secure prisons for kidnappers and a national database of the largely unregistered cell phones frequently used by criminal gangs.

Mexico has one of the world's highest kidnapping rates, according to the anti-violence group IKV Pax Christi. Kidnappings are up 9.1 percent this year, averaging 65 per month nationwide, according to the Attorney General's Office, which blames a growing web of drug cartels, cops, former cops and informants who point out potentially lucrative victims.

But most kidnappings go unreported, for fear of the police.

The nonprofit Citizens' Institute for Crime Studies estimates the real kidnapping rate to be more than 500 per month.

Alejandro Cesar Zamudio, a commander of Mexico City detectives, defended the innocence of the officer implicated in the Marti case, saying the allegations were motivated by rivalries within the department. But Mexico City's top cop, Public Safety Secretary Manuel Mondragon, acknowledged that ''a spiderweb of corruption has penetrated many parts of our department.''

Rich Mexicans have long resigned themselves to hiring private security teams and negotiators to deal with the threat. But now, even middle-class people are at risk, and kidnappers are increasingly killing their captives, even if a ransom is paid.

Just three days before Marti's decomposed body was found on Aug. 1, a family of six was found dead in their home in western Jalisco state, allegedly targeted by kidnappers aided by corrupt cops.

Four victims, including two children, were shot in the head. A teenage boy's throat was slashed. His mother was asphyxiated with a plastic bag.

One of the family's sons had been kidnapped and released after a ransom was paid, but the gang -- allegedly aided by a corrupt cop in the state anti-kidnapping squad -- demanded they hand over more cash.

The gang killed the family after they realized the police officer was part of the scheme, prosecutors say.

Anger also boiled over last week when residents of the central Mexico town of Tlapanala managed to surround and disarm a gang of seven kidnappers posing as police. They held them for 24 hours, pounding the men to bloody pulps.

Mexico abandoned the death penalty long ago and considers life sentences to be cruel and unusual punishment. Only in 2005 did Mexico agree to extradite suspects facing life sentences in the United States. But this week, the small Green Party proposed reinstating capital punishment for police who participate in kidnappings, or for kidnappers who kill their victims.

Calderon has proposed life imprisonment for the worst kidnapping cases, currently punishable by 50 years.

The Attorney General's Office says increasingly diversified organized crime cartels ''now operate in drug trafficking, kidnapping and money laundering, among other things, with no central control or any one gang dominating any of the criminal activities.

''That is why kidnapping has grown more competitive, with kidnappers using much more violence against each other and against the victims, in a bid to gain territory, markets or dominance,'' the report says.

An anti-crime march in 2004 drew more than a quarter-million people and damaged the presidential aspirations of the capital's mayor at the time, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador. Another such mass march has been called for Aug. 30.

Interior Secretary Juan Camilo Mourino worries that growing anger could lead to more vigilantism and mob justice.

''It is clear that the public is indignant, is angry, and it has a right to be,'' Mourino said. ''If we are not able to reach agreements and channel these demands into clear and concrete steps, then yes, people could start taking other types of action that wouldn't solve the problem or benefit anyone.''

How To: Make an iPhone Ringtone with iTunes in Windows

How To: Make an iPhone Ringtone with iTunes in Windows
http://lifehacker.com/400690/make-an-iphone-ringtone-with-itunes-in-windows

We've shown you how you can turn your (non-DRM-protected) music collection into custom iPhone ringtones using GarageBand and iTunes on a Mac, or software like ToneShop for Windows but the CyberNet tech site's made it easy for those with just a copy of iTunes for Windows to hack together their own tones. The basic trick is to single out a short section of a song in iTunes, export it to a non-protected AAC/M4A format, then do a quick file extension switch and re-upload it to iTunes. CyberNet details the process in greater detail, of course, and it's a nice fix for those who don't want to edit waveform files just to rock out to 20 seconds of "London Calling."

Gmail Account Hacking Tool | Hacking Truths

Gmail Account Hacking Tool | Hacking Truths

A tool that automatically steals IDs of non-encrypted sessions and breaks into Google Mail accounts has been presented at the Defcon hackers’ conference in Las Vegas.

Last week Google introduced a new feature in Gmail that allows users to permanently switch on SSL and use it for every action involving Gmail, and not only, authentication. Users who did not turn it on now have a serious reason to do so as Mike Perry, the reverse engineer from San Francisco who developed the tool is planning to release it in two weeks.

When you log in to Gmail the website sends a cookie (a text file) containing your session ID to the browser. This file makes it possible for the website to know that you are authenticated and keep you logged in for two weeks, unless you manually hit the sign out button. When you hit sign out this cookie is cleared.

Even though when you log in, Gmail forces the authentication over SSL (Secure Socket Layer), you are not secure because it reverts back to a regular unencrypted connection after the authentication is done. According to Google this behavior was chosen because of low-bandwidth users, as SLL connections are slower.

The problem lies with the fact that every time you access anything on Gmail, even an image, your browser also sends your cookie to the website. This makes it possible for an attacker sniffing traffic on the network to insert an image served from http://mail.google.com and force your browser to send the cookie file, thus getting your session ID. Once this happens the attacker can log in to the account without the need of a password. People checking their e-mail from public wireless hotspots are obviously more likely to get attacked than the ones using secure wired networks.

Perry mentioned that he notified Google about this situation over a year ago and even though eventually it made this option available, he is not happy with the lack of information. “Google did not explain why using this new feature was so important” he said. He continued and explained the implications of not informing the users, “This gives people who routinely log in to Gmail beginning with an https:// session a false sense of security, because they think they’re secure but they’re really not.”

If you are logging in to your Gmail account from different locations and you would like to benefit from this option only when you are using unsecured networks, you can force it by manually typing https://mail.google.com before you log in. This will access the SSL version of Gmail and it will be persistent over your entire session and not only during authentication.

Feds refute 9/11 conspiracy theory - Security- msnbc.com

Feds refute 9/11 conspiracy theory - Security- msnbc.com: "GAITHERSBURG, Md. - Federal investigators issued a report Thursday concluding that fires brought down a skyscraper next to New York’s twin towers on Sept. 11, refuting conspiracy theorists who have long believed that explosives somehow caused the collapse."

McCain: ‘There Are Too Many Lobbyists In Washington’ — But 160 Of Them Run My Campaign

McCain: 'There Are Too Many Lobbyists In Washington' — But 160 Of Them Run My Campaign

mccain63.jpgEarlier this week, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) held a $1.75 million fundraiser tied to Ralph Reed, the former Christian Coalition head connected to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff. In an interview with Politico yesterday, however, McCain ripped lobbyists as "birds of prey," adding, "I think there are too many lobbyists in Washington":

"Whenever there's a corrupt system, then you're going to have these birds of prey descend on it to get their share of the spoils. … Lobbyists don't come to my office. Because they know they're not going to be an earmark. They know they're not going to get a pork-barrel project. […]

"But the fact is that they are the symptom of a disease," he continued. "As long as you have earmarking and pork-barrel spending and bridges to nowhere and money for DNA of bears in Montana and museums and all that, then you're going to have lobbyists."

But the "disease" has infected McCain's campaign. While McCain claims "there are too many lobbyists," he has at least 159 lobbyists — on leaves of absences — running his campaign, fundraising, and shaping his policies. McCain has praised their work repeatedly, specifically their closeness to him:

"Having worked in Washington for so long, I can claim with gratitude a good number of lobbyists as friends and supporters, many of whom supported my presidential campaign." [Worth the Fighting For]

"Lobbying is an honorable profession. I have no problem with it. I have no problem with people working in order to bring the people's interests and agenda and priorities to the attention of Congress. Almost all of us who I know of rely on their input on various issues. Many supply us with policy papers, with data, et cetera." [Congressional Record, 12/16/05]

"I'm going to thank some corrupt unscrupulous lobbyists that are destroying America as we speak, everything we stand for and believe in." [6/9/08]

On his top aide's past lobbying for Georgia: "I'm proud to have supported them. … And I'm so proud that so many of my friends have done so, who also believe in freedom and democracy." [8/19/08]

This week, McCain toured an oil rig off the coast of Louisiana owned by Chevron and Exxon Mobil. Both companies have lobbyists working and fundraising for McCain's campaign, and shaping his policies.

UPDATE: On March 10, 2006, McCain remarked, "Now what's wrong? What's wrong? Is it lobbying? Lobbyists are good people. They're decent people." Watch it:



What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink? | Water | AlterNet

What If Your Tap Water Is Not Safe To Drink? | Water | AlterNet: "In the U.S., 89.3 percent of tap water is deemed safe, but what if you're one of the 29 million people whose water missed the mark?"

By Elizabeth Royte, Huffington Post
Posted on August 19, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95630/

It's easy to be disdainful of bottled water if you've got no problem with tap. I live in a city with excellent municipal water. I've got lead-free pipes, a nice reusable bottle (which I almost always remember to bring with me), and I have no qualms about refilling it from public spigots or sinks. But not everyone is so lucky, and despite the airtight arguments against bottled water- it costs thousands of times more than tap, it often tastes no different, and it has a significant carbon footprint -- it isn't so easy for everyone to quit the habit.

And that's the dirty little secret behind the bottled-water wars. Not all tap water is perfect. It may meet all federal and state requirements but smell like rotten eggs or a swimming pool. The Environmental Protection Agency calls many taste and odor problems an "aesthetic," not health, issue, in which case a decent filter may solve the problem. But what if your water contains high levels of carcinogenic disinfection byproducts, which can result when organic matter mixes with chlorine? What if you live near an industrial plant or an army base that's contaminated your groundwater? It's happened around Binghamton, Minneapolis, Las Vegas, and dozens of cities around the nation. A countertop filter isn't going to protect you from perchlorate, perfluorochemicals, or trichloroethene.

The fact is, 89.3 percent of the nation's community water systems met or exceeded federal standards in 2007 (down from 92 percent in 2006). It sounds good, but that still leaves more than 29 million people drinking water that missed the mark on either health or reporting standards. (Utilities that fail to report test results to the feds may be trying to hide something considered unhealthy.) Who are the unlucky millions? According to the Environmental Protection Agency, they live in small communities that lack the funding to take good care of their water. Utility managers deal the hand they're dealt, in terms of source water, but the ones with more financial resources inevitably play a better hand.

For those with sub-par tap water, does a retreat to the bottle make sense? Hardly. First, bottled water isn't necessarily more healthful than tap. The Food and Drug Administration allows in bottled water basically the same levels of contaminants the EPA allows in tap water (no naturally occurring water is absolutely pure). Contaminants that go unregulated by the EPA -- such as perchlorate or MTBE, a gasoline additive - also go unregulated by the FDA. While utility customers can learn the results of testing from annual reports, bottlers aren't required to reveal the results of either their self-testing or their far less frequent independent inspections. As an EPA employee told me, with bottled water "it's a crapshoot what you're getting." Another difference: bottled water is tested at the plant, not after it's been sitting in plastic for up to two years. Chemicals from bottles have been shown to leach into water over time.

Second, many people can't afford bottled water, especially with oil so precious. Third, and perhaps most importantly, abandoning tap water en masse will only make it worse for its remaining consumers. Good water doesn't just happen: it takes political will to allocate and spend money to protect watersheds, wrangle with polluters, and replace old pipes. Distanced from public systems, committed bottled water drinkers have little incentive to support bond issues and other methods - including rate increases - of upgrading municipal water treatment.

And that's the conundrum: environmental groups readily point out our water systems' failures (the dozens of unregulated contaminants, the discharge of 850 billion gallons of raw sewage into the nation's waterways each year, the $22-billion-a-year funding shortfall to fix distribution pipes and treatment plants). But those same groups are uncomfortable steering us toward an apparent solution: water that's been ultra-filtered by private companies, or water sourced from supposedly pristine springs. Instead, advocacy groups say, protect yourself with an on-tap or under-the-sink filter, which remove far more contaminants than countertop models.

Of course, filters have their own environmental and economic costs. So what's a better solution? Ultimately, we must fix and improve the systems we've got. Clean drinking water is an index of a functioning society: more than a billion people worldwide lack sufficient access to clean water, and more than 5 million a year die from waterborne diseases. The United States still has one of the best water systems in the developed world: it would be criminal to run it into the ground. Our water will either continue to degrade -as development, agriculture, and industry pollute our water -- or we'll forge ahead with strengthened treatment standards and watershed protection and serious investment in water and distribution infrastructure (funded by more realistic water rates, and by large-scale water users and polluters).

Bottled water isn't, in the larger scheme, the worst thing in the world. (If you absolutely must buy a containerized beverage, it beats soda or other high-calorie drinks.) But if our leaders continue to under-fund and ignore the nation's water systems, and the public flees municipal supplies for private, these systems will degrade to the point where only those who can afford to buy good water, from protected sources, will have it. And that would be a tragedy.

Elizabeth Royte is the author of Bottlemania: How Water Went On Sale and Why We Bought It and Garbage Land: On the Secret Trail of Trash.

© 2008 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95630/

Dead Zone Diet: Why Fertilizers Are Taking Fish off the Menu | Water | AlterNet

Dead Zone Diet: Why Fertilizers Are Taking Fish off the Menu | Water | AlterNet: "Fertilizer runoff from industrial agriculture and fossil-fuel use are causing catastrophic 'dead zones' in our oceans."

By Kerry Trueman, Huffington Post
Posted on August 18, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95458/

Steak or salmon? Millions of menu-mulling diners ask themselves this question every day. Enjoy your dithering while you can, folks, because the day is coming when you may not have the luxury of choosing the lobster over the London broil. For those with a more populist palate, I've got some bad news, too; a future with no more fried clam strips or canned tuna for you.

Why? Because fertilizer runoff from industrial agriculture and fossil-fuel use are causing catastrophic "dead zones" in our oceans, "killing large swaths of sea life and causing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage," according to Scientific American.

It's Agribiz vs. Aquabiz, and at the moment, the farmers are beating the waders off of the fishermen. Scientific American notes that "there are now 405 identified dead zones worldwide, up from 49 in the 1960s." And once a marine habitat falls victim to hypoxia, i.e. oxygen deficiency, the outlook is grim:

Only a few dead zones have ever recovered, such as the Black Sea, which rebounded quickly in the 1990s with the collapse of the Soviet Union and a massive reduction in fertilizer runoff from fields in Russia and Ukraine. Fertilizer contains large amounts of nitrogen, and it runs off of agricultural fields in water and into rivers, and eventually into oceans.
This fertilizer runoff, instead of contributing to more corn or wheat, feeds massive algae blooms in the coastal oceans. This algae, in turn, dies and sinks to the bottom where it is consumed by microbes, which consume oxygen in the process. More algae means more oxygen-burning, and thereby less oxygen in the water, resulting in a massive flight by those fish, crustaceans and other ocean-dwellers able to relocate as well as the mass death of immobile creatures, such as clams or other bottom-dwellers. And that's when the microbes that thrive in oxygen-free environments take over, forming vast bacterial mats that produce hydrogen sulfide, a toxic gas.

How fitting! More toxic gas from the same chemical companies who gave the world Agent Orange. Except that in this case, it's an unwelcome by-product. Oops! Sorry 'bout that!

But don't worry, Monsanto and DuPont are on the job. They've come up with a great new biotech solution to the mess they've made of our oceans; "NUE" crops, as in "nitrogen use efficiency." These NUE crops are engineered to have roots that absorb more nitrogen, reportedly allowing farmers to "produce the same yield with half as much fertilizer.

"I've got a better idea. Why don't we stop looking to the same corporations who have screwed up our environment to fix things? As Prince Charles told the Telegraph the other day, the multinational companies promoting the use of GM crops are conducting a "gigantic experiment I think with nature and the whole of humanity which has gone seriously wrong." Charles has predictably been labeled a luddite for daring to challenge "a system that is fundamentally flawed," as Grist puts it. But it's the Better-Living-Through-Biotech crowd who's just too blinkered to see the Big Picture -- you know, the one where all their brilliant breakthroughs come back to bite us on the ass.

There's the Roundup-resistant strain of super weeds Monsanto's helped create, for example, and let's not forget another great Monsanto innovation, Posilac, aka rBST, the bovine growth hormone designed to wring more milk out of our dairy cows. Unfortunately for Monsanto, cows are not sponges but, in fact, living, breathing creatures whose bodies aren't equipped to cope with the stepped-up production induced by artificial hormones.

Consumer rejection of rBST-tainted dairy products finally forced Monsanto to admit that it's looking to dump Posilac, but you can bet they've got any number of equally ill-conceived "breakthroughs" in the pipeline that promise to solve all the world's food crises. In fact, the Agribiz apologists will tell you that industrial agriculture is our only hope.

But as Frances Moore Lappé wrote on the Huffington Post last week, the notion that we should be looking to Agribiz to feed the world is pernicious propaganda spread with the aid -- sometimes unwitting -- of a lazy and uninformed media. The story that's not getting out is the fact that farmers all over the world are finding new ways -- and reviving old ones -- to produce food without destroying our soil and water. As Lappé notes:

On every continent one can find empowered rural communities developing GM-free, agro-ecological farming systems. They're succeeding: The largest overview study, looking at farmers transitioning to sustainable practices in 57 countries, involving almost 13 million small farmers on almost 100 million acres, found after four years that average yields were up 79 percent.

We managed to feed ourselves for centuries without relying on chemicals and we can do it again. As environmental journalist Claire Cummings writes in Uncertain Peril:

Our success as a species did not come about because we imposed our values on nature. As a survival strategy, domination is doomed ... Our outmoded engineering technologies require us to exert too much command and control over nature in an endless cycle of tyranny ...
...Genetic engineering has misled us into believing that we have to reformulate nature according to our own designs. Even if it works, it's a dead-end strategy, because it forces us to live within the extremely limited confines of the human imagination.

Limited, indeed. Who could have predicted that those amber waves of grain we grow from sea to shining sea would wind up destroying those seas -- aside, of course, from the marine biologists who've been "sounding the alarm on hypoxic zones for decades"? Imagine this; if we don't take drastic steps to halt the growth of these dead zones, the question of whether to order the meat or the fish could become as obsolete as VHS vs. Beta. Better learn to love your veggies.

© 2008 Huffington Post All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95458/

Water for All: The Leaders of a New Revolution | Water | AlterNet

Water for All: The Leaders of a New Revolution | Water | AlterNet: "A gathering of international thinkers, artists, and activists is inspiring a new revolution in the right to water and what belongs to the commons."

By Jay Walljasper, OnTheCommons.org
Posted on August 20, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95814/

The water commons as a concept is easy to understand. And in a time when our planet is threatened by global warming, the importance of the idea is all-too-obvious.

Put simply, the water commons means that water is no one's property; it rightfully belongs to all of humanity and to the earth itself. It is our duty to protect the quality and availability of water for everyone around the planet. This ethic should be the foundation of all decisions made about use of this life-giving resource. Water is not a commodity to be sold or squandered or hoarded.

There are perhaps thousands of campaigns taking place around the planet that draw on shared principles and advance the water commons, although likely not using that language. The water commons (not always in common parlance) can be a powerful, unifying principle drawing together our diverse but inter-related efforts.

This is the firm conclusion made by a diverse group of leaders from many fields and nations who gathered in late spring at Blue Mountain Center, amid the lake-dotted Adirondack Mountains of New York State, for a conversation exploring the theme of "Water For All." Brought together by On the Commons, the Blue Planet Project, and Grassroots International, the group included a public health researcher, an economist, a filmmaker, lawyers, community organizers, authors, professors, NGO directors, and foundation officers from the U.S., Canada, Mexico, Uruguay, Germany and India.

Maude Barlow, prominent Canadian social activist and author of the international bestseller Blue Gold: The Fight to Stop Corporate Theft of the World's Water, offered a wide-ranging overview of what's at stake from a paper she had specially prepared for the conference.

  • It's a well-known fact that one-third of all Africans have no regular access to clean drinking water. But what's not known is that this number is poised to rise to one-half due to increasing pollution and water privatization.
  • In the United States, Pentagon officials are already being advised by defense contractors like Lockheed-Martin about securing new sources of water outside American borders -- an eerie parallel to the oil politics that has driven U.S. foreign policy for decades.
  • The stranglehold that multinational corporations hold on global water supplies has intensified since she published Blue Gold six years ago. General Electric is now the largest water company in the world, and many others view the sale of water as a key growth industry for the 21st Century. Bechtel Corporation went so far as to try to charge people in Bolivia for the rainwater that fell upon their roofs.
  • The hydrological cycle -- the natural process of precipitation and evaporation that governs ecosystems -- is being permanently affected as we alter landscapes by damming, draining, paving, deforestation and other large-scale disruptions. This results in severe unintended consequences such as droughts, flood and desertification.
  • The global warming crisis is tightly intertwined with water issues but rarely discussed by government panels and NGOs seeking climate change solutions.

"Every human activity now needs to be measured by its impact on water and the water commons," Maude Barlow declared. "It is a flagrant violation of human rights when only the rich have access to clean water," she added.

In her wide travels studying and speaking out on these issues, Barlow sees signs of an emerging water commons consciousness. The efforts at this point are largely local, but when added all together she sees potential for a global movement to press claims to water as fundamental right for all.

  • Uruguay amended its constitution to recognize the right to water free of charge as a basic principle. Colombia is considering a similar measure.
  • A backlash against private operation of public water supplies is growing; it started in South America and has now spread to Africa and even the United States. The World Bank and UN have both been forced to back off from their touting of privatized water as the only way to ensure safe drinking water.
  • Norway has refused to fund any further World Bank project that promotes water privatization.

Rajendra Singh, founder of Tarun Bharat Sangh (TBS, or Young India Association), told a personal and at times very amusing story of his work in Rajasthan, India. Trained as a doctor in traditional Indian Ayurvedic medicine, he had always wanted to be a farmer and soon after university he moved to the Alwyn district to test some ideas he'd long had in his head. The Arvari River had dried up during the 1940s when the surrounding hills had been stripped of trees. It flowed only during the monsoon season. This meant that over the decades people had left the villages to seek a livelihood elsewhere, and when Singh arrived in the early 1980s the area was populated by only the oldest and poorest residents.

Drawing on indigenous Indian knowledge of geology, hydrology and ecology, he began building tiny dams and johads (reservoirs) on streams flowing to the river in the hopes of reviving the natural water flow. The local elders chuckled as they watched him do backbreaking work with very little results for two years. They then decided he was sincere in trying to help them so offered tips on the right spots to place dams and johads. It worked. Within four years the water captured in the johads during monsoon season was rejuvenating natural vegetation and refilling the aquifers.

The Arvari River now runs all year and people who abandoned the district are now moving back. Villagers are creating their own "river parliaments" to sustain this precious water commons; each is governed by two leaders -- one who is responsible to the community, and one who is responsible solely to the water and nature.

"Water is a very emotional, spiritual thing," Singh explained, noting that the once-lost river is now as sacred to local people -- many ask before they die that their ashes be sprinkled into the Arvari rather than the Ganges.

Johanna Miller, outreach director of the Vermont Natural Resources Council, recounted how environmentalists and water activists passed state legislation limiting the amount of groundwater that can be pumped for commercial uses. This was a noteworthy political victory in an era when "property rights" and "takings" still ring across the U.S. as a fierce rallying cry. But Miller noted that the simple question, "Who owns the water?" sent an even more powerful message to many citizens, who showed their support for the bill.

Paula Garcia, executive director of the New Mexico Acequia Association, explained how this centuries-old example of cooperative water management works. Found throughout Latin America, acequias are communal irrigation systems shared by dozens or even hundreds of families living along the same stream. In New Mexico, they have been functioning for 400 years and survived many attempts at privatization. Garcia credits the ethic of querencia, expressed by many Hispanics and indigenous people in New Mexico, as key to the preservation of the acequia commons. Querencia means a deep love for the place where you feel most at home and safe. It's related to quere, the Spanish word for "to want, to desire."

Octavio Rosas Landa, an economics professor and activist from Mexico City, outlined how many Mexican peasants are losing longstanding water rights as the government aggressively pursues a strategy of clearing peasants from the land in the name of economic progress. Twenty-two million of the country's 25 million campesinos are targeted, according to Rosas Landa. Control over who gets to use the water is one of the most effective tools wielded by the government and corporations to make this happen.

Cindy Parker, co-director of the Program on Global Sustainability and Health at Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, noted how issues relating to the water commons, and environmental protection in general, get increased attention when discussed as health issues. "It's still easy for a policymaker to distance themselves from a purely environmental issue. But it is much harder for them to ignore a public health issues." Health itself is a commons, she said, because everyone has a right to health.

V. Suresh -- director of the Rights Research Centre of the Centre for Law, Policy and Human Rights Studies in Chennai, India -- surveyed a world where even industrialized nations must respond to water shortages. Australia now places restrictions on washing cars with drinking water and last year London's mayor banned lawn sprinklers.

The World Bank and other agents of water privatization claim that their policies promote conservation of the water supply, ease the burden of women (who in traditional cultures often carry water long distances), and expand access to clean water. Yet in reality, the results of water privatization is that poor people are cut off from access to safe water.

Suresh declared there is absolutely no evidence to support claims that water privatization boosts conservation. Cooperative water sharing systems, on the other hand, like those used for generations in Latin America, have a proven track record in preserving scarce water resources. He added that the recent emphasis on technological and free market solutions actually diminishes people's own creativity in addressing these problems. "Fifty years of development have wiped out local knowledge and skills about conserving and cooperating around water."

V. Suresh has effectively organized water utility workers - those often written off as spiritless bureaucrats -- in radically reforming Chennai's water utility.

Harriet Barlow, director of Blue Mountain Center -- who convened the Water for All meeting with Anil Naidoo of the Blue Planet Project, Daniel Moss of Grassroots Inernational and Julie Ristau of On the Commons -- stressed that the point of the gathering was not to launch one more activist organization, but rather to explore something that might look more like a network of networks. "We're already part of many networks and campaigns. We've come here in a state of inquiry. How do we make a water commons revolution?" The stimulating conversation at Blue Mountain Center marks the first step toward that goal.

A sampling of ideas about the commons and about water from the Blue Mountain Center meeting:

  • Every religion says water is the origin of life. Rajendra Singh -- Founder Tarun Bharat Sangh (Rajasthan, India)
  • You can't simply look at one sector of the commons in isolation. All are interlocking and must be looked at holistically. The water commons relates to the public service commons, the tax commons, the public health commons, the environment commons. Harriet Barlow -- Senior Fellow, On the Commons
  • The commons is a framework for reconstruction. Until now we have spent more time on resistance than on reconstruction. Alberto Villarreal -- Co-founder, REDES (Social Ecology Network, Uruguay)
  • Why is it so difficult to describe to the world something we know intuitively in our hearts? Commons poets and artists can help us do this. Juliette Majot -- Consultant and former Executive Director of International Rivers
  • The World Bank and other international agencies know how to spend $1 billion in one place, building a dam, but they do not know how to spend $1000 in a million places that will make a positive difference by using local resources and knowledge. Maude Barlow -- Chairperson, Council of Canadians
  • In thinking about how legal frameworks can be used to protect the commons, its worthwhile to consider the extent to which the law grew out of local commons and customs. David Mears -- Director, Environmental and Nautral Resources Law Clinic at the Vermont Law School
  • The idea of pricing water did not originate with the environmental movement. It came out of right-wing think tanks in the 1970s. Wenonah Hauter, Executive Director, Food and Water Watch
  • Challenging the ownership of water was off the table as a credible mainstream issue for many years, but the framework of the commons is an opportunity to raise it again. Alan Snitow -- Director of the film Thirst and author of the accompanying book Thirst: Fighting the Corporate Theft of Our Water.
  • There is a sense of abundance when we let water follow its natural course. Jim Harkness -- President, Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy":www.iatp.org
  • Two themes that are very helpful in focusing people's attention on water: Water is a human right. And who owns the water? Johanna Miller -- Outreach Director, Vermont National Resources Council
  • Pete Seeger may well have saved the Hudson River by floating a boat up and down it singing songs. Harriet Barlow -- Senior Fellow, On the Common
  • The commons is a worldview, not an ideology. It allows us to say some things are not for sale. David Bollier -- Fellow, On the Commons
  • Water is a leading edge to understanding the commons. Neither climate nor local food activists have stressed how closely water is linked to these issues. I look forward to opening discussions with those groups. Chuck Collins -- Fellow, On the Commons
  • We are not going to get climate change right unless we look at the role of of water. Maude Barlow -- Chairperson, Council of Canadians
  • A spirit of reciprocity is essential in working with existing groups, including those in the developing world, on water commons issues. Daniel Moss -- Director of Development and Communications, Grassroots International
  • Anil Naidoo noted the word commons does not directly translate into Spanish even though there is likely a greater sense of it in Latin American countries than the developed world.
  • Paula Garcia offered a lyrical Spanish phrase una vida buena y sana -- "a good and wholesome life" -- that might loosely translate as commons.
  • Ingrid Spiller of the German Heinrich Boll Foundation's Latin American Office noted there is a good equivalent that describes the commons in German, which means nearly the same thing as in English.
  • David Bollier noted that each culture will come up with its own ideas and vernacular language for the commons.
  • The commons is a way of life that respects life. V. Suresh -- Human Rights Lawyer and Director of the Rights Research Centre (Chennai, India)

Jay Walljasper is editor of OnTheCommons.org, a news and culture website devoted to recognizing the importance of the commons -- those things that belong to all of us -- in modern life.

© 2008 OnTheCommons.org All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95814/

Did McCain Just Lose Colorado? | Water | AlterNet

Did McCain Just Lose Colorado? | Water | AlterNet: "McCain might have just lost Colorado after saying he wanted to renegotiate a 1922 water deal and take water from Colorado and New Mexico."

By Joseph Romm, Climate Progress
Posted on August 18, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95462/

What epic gaffe could unite Colorado's Democratic Senator Ken Salazar -- "over my dead body" -- and Republican U.S. Senate candidate Bob Schaffer - "Over my cold, dead, political carcass"?

That would be Arizona Senator John McCain telling The Pueblo Chieftan on Thursady that he wants to renegotiate the famous 1922 Colorado River compact to take water from the so-called upper basin states, including CO and NM, where the river originates and give it to lower basin states like his home state of AZ:

"I don't think there's any doubt the major, major issue is water and can be as important as oil. So the compact that is in effect, obviously, needs to be renegotiated over time amongst the interested parties. I think that there's a movement amongst the governors to try, if not, quote, renegotiate, certainly adjust to the new realities of high growth, of greater demands on a scarcer resource'.
In short, the fact that lots and lots of people keep moving into the desert means Colorado should give up more of its water.

[Note to McCain -- Given your recent history of misinformation and disinformation on the subject (see "Will McCain's cynical lies destroy the chance for serious energy and climate policy?"), I'd skip the analogy to oil.]

Them's fighting words -- literally! The word rival, after all, comes from "people who share the same river." In the West they say, "Whiskey's for drinking, water's for fighting." See also "Warming Will Worsen Water Wars."

Needless to say, Coloradans do not see things the way that the senator from Arizona does. Democratic Governor Bill Ritter pointed out McCain seems utterly unaware that the compact was just renegotiated in December:

"Just last year, the seven states entered into a new implementing agreement, and that agreement is working as intended," Ritter said. "It would be sheer folly to re-open the compact at a time like this when all of the states are working cooperatively on this issue."

In a piece titled, "McCain suggests raiding Colorado's water," the deputy editorial page editor of The Denver Post wrote Friday on behalf of "Five million thirst-crazed Coloradans":

Subject: Forget about winning our nine electoral votes next November. We don't vote for water rustlers in this state; we tar and feather them!

...

As a senator, McCain has long represented a state, Arizona, that would love to steal Colorado's water. But now, he wants our votes. Apparently, nobody bothered to brief the candidate who Paris Hilton called "that wrinkly, white-haired guy" that stealing Colorado's water to benefit Arizona, California and Nevada isn't as popular an idea in Colorado as it is in Arizona, California and Nevada....
... when the lower basin states talk about "renegotiating" the compact, that's their code for a process of give and take -- in which Colorado, Utah, New Mexico and Wyoming give and California, Arizona and Nevada take.

ColoradoPols says McCain just lost Colorado. Sen. Salazar, an expert on water law, said:

"Senator McCain's position on opening up the Colorado River Compact is absolutely wrong and would only happen over my dead body.... It's an anathema to the fundamental principles of Colorado's water rights and our compacts."

In theory McCain understands global warming, so he should know that the West is going to get hotter and drier. In the coming decades, the Rockies snow "reservoir" will diminish, disappearing earlier and earlier in the season. The Upper Basin aides are going to have less and less water to share.

I agree with Sierra Club's Southwest regional director Rob Smith, who said:

Scientists have predicted a 10 to 30 percent reduction of water flow in the Colorado River due to long-term drought and higher temperatures associated with climate change in the Southwest. Instead of threatening a diminishing resource, it would be better to help states and communities with water conservation projects and stream restoration.

McCain's gaffe is both bad policy and bad politics.

© 2008 Climate Progress All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95462/

Confused Baby Whale to Be Euthanized : Discovery News

Confused Baby Whale to Be Euthanized : Discovery News

This is so sad..

Kristen Gelineau, Associated Press

Aug. 21, 2008 -- An abandoned baby whale that has been attempting to suckle boats in the waters off north Sydney will be euthanized because it is in such poor condition, an environmental official said Thursday.

Veterinarians and marine researchers who spent the afternoon examining the whale found that it would likely not live through the night, said Sally Barnes, deputy director-general of the New South Wales Department of Environment and Climate Change.

"The calf was in much worse condition than they originally thought and the injuries were a lot worse than they thought as well, probably from a shark attack," she said. "We have taken the hard decision to put it down, unfortunately."

The plight of the whale, which Australians have nicknamed "Colin," has dominated news coverage here since it was first sighted Sunday and began trying to suckle from boats it apparently mistook for its mother.

"Our hearts are breaking with what's happening with baby Colin," New South Wales Premier Morris Iemma said. "It's looking bleak, but every effort is being made."

One effort came from Aboriginal whale whisperer Bunna Lawrie, who visited the calf Thursday afternoon. Adorned with feathers on his head and white paint markings on his face, Lawrie reached into the water to stroke Colin while singing a humming, tongue-rolling tune.

But after a few minutes the whale swam away to nuzzle a nearby yacht.

"He's missing the big fellas," said Lawrie, whose visit was broadcast on Channel 10 television.

The decision to euthanize the whale prompted a strong protest from a rescue group that designed a feeding apparatus intended to provide milk to the ailing calf.

"You said you'd give us a 24-hour stay of execution!" Brett Devine, a member of Devine Marine Group, shouted as environmental officials tried to calm him.

Some Australians have accused wildlife officials of not doing enough to help the calf or trying to feed it.

Previous attempts to guide the whale back to open waters have failed, with the creature preferring to stick close to the boats. Officials with the New South Wales National Parks and Wildlife Service were considering earlier Thursday whether to use an inflatable sling to tow the creature into deeper waters, where it has a better chance of connecting with other whales.

But in the end, there simply was no other option, a grim-looking Barnes said.

"This is certainly not what we would have hoped. We would have hoped that the animal would have been OK," Barnes said. "It's a very emotional thing."

As darkness fell, wildlife officials and veterinarians huddled in a private meeting to work out the logistics of the whale's fate.

They planned to sedate the animal, tow it to shore, and inject a dose of fatal drugs into its heart.

According to Pelosi, Impeachment Proceedings Are “Off the Table” | AfterDowningStreet.org

According to Pelosi, Impeachment Proceedings Are “Off the Table” | AfterDowningStreet.org

When California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi became House Speaker with the election of a Democratic majority in 2006, hopes ran high in some quarters that the feisty grandmother of seven would lead an investigation into the Bush administration’s actions involving the United States in the Iraq War. The evidence accumulated against the Bush administration — that intelligence linking Saddam Hussein’s government with al-Qaeda, alleging that Iraq possessed “weapons of mass destruction,” and warning that Iraq was well on its way to acquiring nukes, may have been cherry-picked or even fabricated — cried out for serious investigation, at very least. Yet once in office, Pelosi and her colleagues backed away from investigating the charges and soon announced that impeachment was “off the table.”

In a recent article in Time magazine, “10 Questions for Nancy Pelosi,” in which the congresswoman answered readers’ queries, Nancy Shipes of Woodstown, New Jersey, asked Pelosi why she had ruled out impeachment proceedings against the president.

Her response? “I took it off the table a long time ago. You can’t talk about impeachment unless you have the facts, and you can’t have the facts unless you have cooperation from the Administration. I think the Republicans would like nothing better than for us to focus on impeachment and take our eye off the ball of a progressive economic agenda.”

In other words, impeachment requires the gathering of evidence from a cooperative executive branch, and since the Bush administration refuses to cooperate, there’s nothing further Congress can do about it. This stunning admission is tantamount to saying that Congress cannot impeach the president without his permission. From the standpoint of Congresswoman Pelosi, the president and his tight-lipped minions are superior in authority to the U.S. Congress, a notion that would have the Founders turning in their graves.

Cannonfire on Cheney: Oil + Impeachment = RICO | AfterDowningStreet.org

Cannonfire on Cheney: Oil + Impeachment = RICO | AfterDowningStreet.org

Some people -- anti-Semites, mostly -- deny that oil theft motivated the decision to invade Iraq. All such "alternative" theories face one problem: The oil was, in fact, stolen -- and Cheney planned the theft well in advance.

Previously undisclosed Halliburton documents obtained by The Public Record confirm that controlling the world's second largest oil reserves was a top priority for the Bush administration. Additionally, the deal between the Department of Defense and Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown & Root to operate Iraq's oil industry saved Halliburton from imminent bankruptcy.

The bankruptcy threat came from lawsuits over asbestos poisoning, which led to a form of cancer called mesothelioma. Those ultra-lucrative big money suits are the reason why lawyers have littered the landscape with so many ads trolling for mesothelioma sufferers. At one time, certain law firms would pay as much as ten dollars whenever someone clicked on a Google ad dealing with mesothelioma. (Most Google ads bring in pennies per click.) For a while, some bloggers went out of their way to mention the word "mesothelioma" in their posts, since Google's software automatically matches ads to certain key words. Words like "mesothelioma." Mesothelioma, mesothelioma, mesothelioma.

(Kidding. I don't even get the Google checks anymore, which were always quite miniscule, and I couldn't care less if they canceled the Adsense program on me. Let's get back to our story.)

A March 6, 2003 internal Pentagon e-mail sent by an Army Corps of Engineers official says "action" on a multibillion-dollar Halliburton contract was "coordinated" within Cheney's office.

The e-mail says Douglas Feith, the former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy, received authorization from then Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz to “execute” the Restore Iraqi Oil contract to Halliburton in 2002.

Feith was one of the architects of the Iraq war who operated the Pentagon’s Office of Special Plans that exaggerated the Iraqi threat and provided the White House with bogus information about links between Iraq and al Qaeda.

Right there, you have sufficient grounds for immediate impeachment of Dick Cheney. Not just impeachment: A RICO suit.

Judgment? McCain Says He'd Have Picked Cheney, Rumsfeld - The Jed Report

Judgment? McCain Says He'd Have Picked Cheney, Rumsfeld - The Jed Report

This alone proves that John McCain has bad foreign policy judgment: In 2001, he said that if he'd been president, he'd have picked Donald Rumsfeld to be his Secretary of Defense and Dick Cheney to be his VP. Together, he said, they formed the the "strongest" national security team we've ever had.

That's pretty much an epic fail right there.

cryptogon.com » Archives » U.S. CONSUMERS SHOULD BRACE FOR THE LARGEST INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES IN NEARLY 20 YEARS

cryptogon.com » Archives » U.S. CONSUMERS SHOULD BRACE FOR THE LARGEST INCREASE IN FOOD PRICES IN NEARLY 20 YEARS

Via: Reuters:

U.S. consumers should brace for the biggest increase in food prices in nearly 20 years in 2008 and even more pain next year due to surging meat and produce prices, the Agriculture Department said on Wednesday.

Food prices are forecast to rise by 5 percent to 6 percent this year, making it the largest annual increase since 1990. Just last month, USDA forecast food prices would climb between 4.5 and 5.5 percent in 2008.

“It’s a little bit of a surprise how strong some of the numbers were in July,” USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag, who prepared the forecast, said in an interview.

“We’ve been waiting for some moderation, but especially with some of the meat prices and how much has come through relatively recently (at the retail level) leads me to believe the overall number may be a little bit higher for the year,” he added.

Leibtag said he expected food prices to moderate, but the timing depends on what happens to volatile energy and food ingredient costs.

Prices are expected to rise by 4 percent to 5 percent in 2009, lead by red meat and poultry. The forecast, if correct, would be the third straight year where food prices have surged at least 4 percent.

CNN Talks With McCain About His Extramarital Affairs - The Jed Report

CNN Talks With McCain About His Extramarital Affairs - The Jed Report

McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said in an interview Wednesday that he was uncertain how many houses he and his wife, Cindy, own.

"I think — I'll have my staff get to you," McCain told Politico in Las Cruces, N.M. "It's condominiums where — I'll have them get to you."

The correct answer is at least four, located in Arizona, California and Virginia, according to his staff. Newsweek estimated this summer that the couple owns at least seven properties.

In recent weeks, Democrats have stepped up their effort to caricature McCain as living an outlandishly rich lifestyle — a bit of payback to the GOP for portraying Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) as an elitist, and for turning the spotlight in 2004 on the five homes owned by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) and his wife, Teresa Heinz Kerry.

Pro-Obama labor groups have sent out mailers highlighting McCain’s wealth, and prominent Democrats have included references to it in comments to reporters.

Twice in the past two weeks, those Democrats have focused on McCain’s houses.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) told Politico’s Ben Smith that it was McCain “who wears $500 shoes, has six houses and comes from one of the richest families in his state."

And David Axelrod, Obama’s chief strategist, referred in an interview with Adam Nagourney of The New York Times to an imagined meeting of McCain strategists “on the portico of the McCain estate in Sedona — or maybe in one of his six other houses.”

The Obama campaign seized on the house issue Thursday with an ad called "Seven," claiming that's the number of houses McCain has.

The ad closes with a shot of the White House and the narration: "Here's ONE house American can't afford to let John McCain move into."

McCain spokesman Brian Rogers said in response: "Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people 'cling' to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?

“The reality is that Barack Obama’s plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he’s completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.”

At a campaign appearance in Chester, Va., on Thursday morning, Obama said: "Somebody asked John McCain, 'How many houses do you have?’ And he said, I’m not sure. I’ll have to check with my staff. True quote: I’m not sure, I’ll have to check with my staff. So they asked his staff and he said, at least four. At least four! ...

"If you’re like me and you’ve got one house – or you were like the millions of people who are struggling right now to keep up with their mortgage so that they don’t lose their home — you might have a different perspective. By the way, the answer is: John McCain has seven homes. So there’s just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

McCain’s comments came four days after he initially told Pastor Rick Warren during a faith forum on Sunday his threshold for considering someone rich is $5 million — a careless comment he quickly corrected.

In the interview, McCain did not offer an alternate number, but had a new answer ready.

“I define rich in other ways besides income,” he said. “Some people are wealthy and rich in their lives and their children and their ability to educate them. Others are poor if they’re billionaires.”

McCain, by anyone's measure, is well-off, if you account for his wife's fortune. Cindy McCain inherited control of her father’s beer distributorship, the largest in Arizona, and has an estimated worth of more than $100 million.

Fannie Mae opens satellite offices to sell foreclosures - East Bay Business Times:

Fannie Mae opens satellite offices to sell foreclosures - East Bay Business Times:

Fannie Mae is rethinking how it will handle the tens of thousands of properties being repossessed as the real estate market continues to plummet.

To that end, it is opening two satellite offices, one in California and another in Fort Lauderdale, Fla., to manage and sell its foreclosed properties in those states, said Marilyn Kornfeld, a spokeswoman for the Washington, D.C.-based company.

Nationwide, Fannie Mae has repossessed more than 54,000 homes as of June, exceeding all of last year's repossessions.

"Forty-eight percent of our credit losses were from four states: California, Arizona, Nevada, and Florida. These states saw the most dramatic run-up in prices, and are now seeing the most rapid declines," Fannie Mae CEO Daniel Mudd told investors during a conference call earlier this month.

Home prices have cratered in certain markets since the peak. In California, Riverside was down 40 percent and Modesto and Stockton were down 50 percent.

"So, the housing market has returned to earth fast and hard," Mudd said. "Some signs do offer rays of positive light. Foreclosures actually fell in Michigan. Same-period home sales were up in California. And, as the [government-sponsored entities] provide most of the liquidity to the primary market, that market is functioning and a safe center of credit risk; pricing and product is being restored."

Fannie Mae (NYSE: FNM) said it hopes its new offices in Florida and California will reduce defaults and better manage the property it has taken in foreclosure.

cryptogon.com » Archives » Russia Blocks Georgia’s Main Port City

cryptogon.com » Archives » Russia Blocks Georgia’s Main Port City

Via: AP:

Russian forces blocked the only land entrance to Georgia’s main port city on Thursday, a day before Russia promised to complete a troop pullout from its ex-Soviet neighbor.

Armored personnel carriers and troop trucks blocked the bridge to the Black Sea port city of Poti, and Russian forces excavated trenches and set up mortars facing the city. Another group of APCs and trucks were positioned in a nearby wooded area.

Although Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has promised that his forces would pull back by Friday, Russian troops appear to be digging in, raising concern about whether Moscow is aiming for a lengthy occupation of its small, pro-Western neighbor.

Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili told The Associated Press that Russia was thinning out its presence in some occupied towns but was seizing other strategic spots. He called the Russian moves “some kind of deception game.”


various headlines

Ralph Reed doesn't show up for McCain fundraiser

  As Logan noted last week, Abramoff crony Ralph Reed was supposed to host a fundraiser for his pal John McCain Monday night. Well, apparently the McCain camp realized how bad that would have looked for their candidate,  and although they won't admit they explicitly told him to stay away, Reed never showed up and no mention was made of him.

WSJ:

Ralph Reed was a no-show at a fund-raiser for John McCain Monday evening, following nearly a week of considerable drama surrounding his involvement in the senator's campaign.

The Republican candidate had come under fire for associating with Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition who fell from grace after his involvement with lobbyist Jack Abramoff. McCain was one of the leaders of the investigation of Abramoff's lobbying activities that led to his imprisonment. Reed was never charged.

Kudos to the Obama campaign for jumping on this right quick:

That didn't stop the Obama campaign from issuing a "response" to the absence. "Faced with the embarrassing prospect of holding a fundraiser with one of Jack Abramoff's closest associates, the McCain campaign scrambled today scratch Ralph Reed from tonight's program," Obama spokesman Tommy Vietor said in a statement. "The real question isn't why Reed isn't showing up, but why a so-called reformer would invite him at all."


Newsweek's Alter: 'McCain should stop lying about his opponent'

Two weeks ago, it seemed Newsweek's Jonathan Alter had just about had it with John McCain. The columnist said he's "misread McCain," who, it turns out, is "a surprisingly immature politician" who may not be "ready to lead." Alter's piece concluded that McCain had "mortgaged his precious personal honor."

But underlying Alter's argument is that McCain is still a good guy who's been led astray by irresponsible advisors who've led him astray. McCain's ugly campaign is "out of sync with the real guy," Alter said.

In his new column, Alter takes McCain to task for "making stuff up about Barack Obama," and this time, Alter doesn't make excuses for the Republican nominee.

As usual, news organizations are deeply afraid to say that one side is more negative than the other. Doing so sounds "unfair." It's much easier, and less controversial, to say that "both candidates" are being negative. That would be "balanced", but also untrue. […]

[O]verall, and to his credit, Obama has not engaged in anywhere near the number of falsehoods as McCain.

For about a month, McCain's campaign has been resorting to charges that are patently false. When Obama traveled abroad in July, to positive reviews, McCain decided he had to make attack ads that went far beyond the norm. In the past, plainly deceptive ads were the province of the Republican National Committee or the Democratic National Committee or independent committees free to fling mud that didn't bear the fingerprints of candidates. But not this time. These smears come directly from the candidate.

The litany is no doubt familiar to those watching the campaign closely. McCain lied about Obama being responsible for gas prices. Then about Obama's treatment of wounded U.S. troops in Germany. And then again about Obama's tax policies.

[W]hen he resorts to these kinds of falsehoods, and casts such aspersions on his opponent's patriotism, John McCain is no longer putting his country first. If he were, he would recognize that the interests of the nation require a relatively truthful campaign. To fulfill his image of himself, McCain should stop lying about his opponent. For a man with his claims to honor and integrity, that's not too much to ask.

I think McCain has lost Jonathan Alter.



No Evidence or Even Suspicion of Criminal Activity? Let's Investigate Anyway

New Justice Dept. guidelines to let FBI to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps "without any basis for suspicion."

NY Times reports

A Justice Department plan would loosen restrictions on the Federal Bureau of Investigation to allow agents to open a national security or criminal investigation against someone without any clear basis for suspicion, Democratic lawmakers briefed on the details said Wednesday.

The plan, which could be made public next month, has already generated intense interest and speculation. Little is known about its precise language, but civil liberties advocates say they fear it could give the government even broader license to open terrorism investigations.

Congressional staff members got a glimpse of some of the details in closed briefings this month, and four Democratic senators told Attorney General Michael B. Mukasey in a letter on Wednesday that they were troubled by what they heard.

The senators said the new guidelines would allow the F.B.I. to open an investigation of an American, conduct surveillance, pry into private records and take other investigative steps "without any basis for suspicion." The plan "might permit an innocent American to be subjected to such intrusive surveillance based in part on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, or on protected First Amendment activities," the letter said. It was signed by Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Richard J. Durbin of Illinois, Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island.

As the end of the Bush administration nears, the White House has been seeking to formalize in law and regulation some of the aggressive counterterrorism steps it has already taken in practice since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Congress overhauled the federal wiretapping law in July, for instance, and President Bush issued an executive order this month ratifying new roles for intelligence agencies. Other pending changes would also authorize greater sharing of intelligence information with the local police, a major push in the last seven years.


Tobacco CEO Tells "Truth" About Cigarette Ads [Marketing]

"The truth is that Lorillard markets its Newport brand cigarettes to adult smokers of all ethnicities," writes Lorillard CEO Martin Orlowsky to the Chicago Tribune today. "The truth is that our marketing is not disproportionately directed to African-Americans. The truth is that we do not target underage smokers. The truth is that there are twice as many Caucasian menthol cigarette smokers as there are African-American menthol cigarette smokers. I challenge those who want to prove otherwise to come forward with evidence to support their charges." Ha, well...

Lorillard doesn't have to market disproportionately to African-Americans, because the market share of menthols in the black community is already massive. Look at Orlowsky's own math:

The truth is that there are twice as many Caucasian menthol cigarette smokers as there are African-American menthol cigarette smokers.

African-Americans are about 13% of the US population. Whites are about 74%. There are roughly six times more whites than blacks in the US, but only two times more white menthol smokers. Disparity? Duh.

Targeting the youth?

Heavily-advertised Marlboro, Camel and Newport cigarettes dominated the teen smoking market between 1989 and 1996, according to a new study, which found that the percentage of teen Newport smokers doubled during those years.

Newport made its most significant inroads with the white and Hispanic teen market, say Karen Gerlach, Ph.D., M.P.H., of the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation and colleagues. Their study appears in the American Journal of Health Behavior.

Newport cigarettes contain menthol, which may make them less harsh-tasting and easier for experimenting teens to smoke, Gerlach and colleagues say. They also suggest that expanded advertising campaigns may have helped increase the brand's popularity.

Nobody has to target underage smokers. Target 18-year-old smokers! Their kid brothers will totally pick it up.

[CAOH; letter via Multicult Classics]


Mac-Loving Seinfeld Endorsing Microsoft For $10 Million [Advertising]

SeinfeldmacIn an effort to promote its poxy Windows Vista operating system, Microsoft is paying Jerry Seinfeld $10 million for an endorsement, the Wall Street Journal reported this morning. Yes, because if there's one surefire way to convince everyone Vista is cool, cutting edge and not liable to get frazzled by life's minor complications, it's hiring a 1990s sitcom star and professional kvetcher! Who, um, very visibly owned a series of Macs on his show. This is Microsoft's worst promotional concept since, well, since its last Vista campaign, the Mojave Experiment, which decisively proved that people hate Vista but will use it if they are tricked into thinking it's something else, like a stable, functional tool. Here's how Madison Avenue is responding:

"They are not seen as cool," says Robert Passikoff, president of Brand Keys, a New York branding firm. "Apple is cool. Can anyone even recall a Microsoft ad? No."

And they won't be able to remember this one either, because using Seinfeld humor in ads was already considered tired three years ago.

Good luck with alll that!

[WSJ]



Report Rejects Medicare Boast of Paring Fraud - NYTimes.com

Report Rejects Medicare Boast of Paring Fraud - NYTimes.com

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/21/business/21medicare.html?th&emc=th

Medicare’s top officials said in 2006 that they had reduced the number of fraudulent and improper claims paid by the agency, keeping billions of dollars out of the hands of people trying to game the system.

But according to a confidential draft of a federal inspector general’s report, those claims of success, which earned Medicare wide praise from lawmakers, were misleading.

In calculating the agency’s rate of improper payments, Medicare officials told outside auditors to ignore government policies that would have accurately measured fraud, according to the report. For example, auditors were told not to compare invoices from salespeople against doctors’ records, as required by law, to make sure that medical equipment went to actual patients.

As a result, Medicare did not detect that more than one-third of spending for wheelchairs, oxygen supplies and other medical equipment in its 2006 fiscal year was improper, according to the report. Based on data in other Medicare reports, that would be about $2.8 billion in improper spending.

That same year, Medicare officials told Congress that they had succeeded in driving down the cost of fraud in medical equipment to $700 million.

Some lawmakers and Congressional staff members say the irregularities that the inspector general found were tantamount to corruption and raise broader questions about the credibility of other Medicare figures.

“This is outrageous,” said Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Finance Committee, who has repeatedly credited the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services with reducing improper expenditures. “If heads don’t roll, you can’t change the culture of this organization,” he added.

Senator Grassley had not yet received the full report from the inspector general but had been briefed on its contents.

The report — a draft of which was obtained by The New York Times — will probably be made public within the next week, according to federal officials. The inspector general may change or edit the findings of the report before it is officially released. Congressional staff said the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services — the agency overseeing Medicare — was lobbying the inspector to play down the report’s conclusions.

A spokesman for Medicare said that the agency agreed with the inspector general that the agency’s reported level of improper billing for durable medical equipment, or D.M.E., should have been higher. But Medicare says the $2.8 billion figure is unsupported.

“Allegations of manipulation of this error rate are preposterous,” said the spokesman, Jeff Nelligan. “The agency has aggressively targeted fraud and improper payments in the D.M.E. program. We have a history of working closely with the inspector general and will continue to do so.”

A representative of the Office of Inspector General that created the report — part of Medicare’s parent, the Department of Health and Human Services — said it did not comment on draft reports.

Fraudulent and improper payments have long bedeviled Medicare, a $466 billion program. In particular, payments for durable medical equipment, like power wheelchairs and diabetic test kits, are ripe for fraud.

Equipment sellers have submitted counterfeit documents, forged doctors’ signatures and filed claims on behalf of patients who were dead or had never been seen by the prescribing physician, according to many reports by government oversight agencies.

For example, a Florida businessman was sentenced last year to 37 months in prison for submitting more than $5.5 million of fake claims to Medicare. The businessman operated for months, despite giving the agency an address that was actually a utility closet.

On July 1, Medicare instituted a new competitive bidding system that officials said would reduce both fraud and costs for medical equipment.

On July 15, however, Congress suspended the program, after equipment manufacturers and sellers began an aggressive lobbying campaign.

Senator Grassley said Congress might push for an investigation into the private company that was hired to fulfill Medicare’s auditing program, the AdvanceMed Corporation, a division of the Computer Sciences Corporation. The report mentions AdvanceMed by name.

Representatives of AdvanceMed did not return calls. The company has received contracts worth more than $34 million from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services since 2005.

“This report doesn’t surprise me,” said Representative Pete Stark, Democrat of California and a senior member of the Ways and Means Committee. He has pushed to cut improper Medicare spending. “To look better to the public, you cook the books,” he said. “This agency is incompetent.”

The Office of Inspector General’s report details scrutiny of a program known as Comprehensive Error Rate Testing, or CERT, that audits a sample of Medicare claims submitted by sellers of durable medical equipment. That program is supposed to randomly choose claims and review the medical records and other documents supporting submitted claims to determine whether payment is justified.

According to the inspector general’s report, officials at Medicare instructed AdvanceMed to disregard those policies. Instead, AdvanceMed was told to examine only the documents submitted by the companies selling the medical equipment, rather than verify those documents against physicians’ records.

Medicare reported to Congress that, for the fiscal year of 2006, AdvanceMed’s investigations had found that only 7.5 percent of claims paid by Medicare were not supported by appropriate documentation. But the inspector general’s review indicated that the actual error rate was closer to 31.5 percent.

For instance, according to the report, the Office of Inspector General examined a claim for an electric wheelchair that AdvanceMed had said was appropriate. The inspector general’s investigation revealed that the physician who was listed as having prescribed the wheelchair had no knowledge of the prescription.

The person who received the wheelchair said that he had never met with the physician, that he did not need a wheelchair and that he had never used it, according to the report. His wife had also received a wheelchair that she had not asked for and never used.

Equipment sellers can pocket more than $2,500 every time they send a powered wheelchair to a patient and bill Medicare.

“This is like letting the fox guard the henhouse,” said Malcolm Sparrow, a Harvard University professor who focuses on health care fraud. “The supplier has an incentive to supply fabricated documents or to imply that medical records support a purchase when they don’t. If you don’t ask the physician or ask for medical records, you can’t really verify anything.”

At least 150 dead in Spanair plane crash at Madrid's Barajas airport - Los Angeles Times

At least 150 dead in Spanair plane crash at Madrid's Barajas airport - Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-fg-spaincrash21-2008aug21,0,5726810.story?track=ntothtml

MADRID — It was a troubled flight from the beginning. One attempt at takeoff was aborted. Departure was delayed by more than an hour. Passengers, many of them parents traveling with their young children, were grumpy and hot, eager to get on with it, to start their holidays in the alluring Canary Islands.

Several used their cellphones to call relatives and report the problems. Finally, they said by phone, the flight was going to take off.

It tried. But seconds after Spanair Flight JK5022 barreled down a new runway at Madrid's Barajas airport and began to lift off, the jet jerked to the right and plowed into a tree-covered ravine. The fuselage broke into two pieces, maybe more, witnesses at the airport said, and burst into flames.

At least 153 people were killed in the deadliest accident at the ultramodern airport in a quarter of a century. Nineteen people, including two children, survived.

"I pulled out about seven people alive," said Francisco Cruz, a private pilot who was among the people pressed into rescue service. "And then it was all dead bodies."

The accident was also the latest among mounting woes for Spanair, the Spanish unit of Stockholm-based SAS and Spain's second-largest carrier.

Spanair executives said it was too early to pinpoint the cause of the crash, but, as the passengers indicated, there were numerous signs that the plane, a 15-year-old U.S.-made McDonnell Douglas MD-82, had technical problems.

Spanair spokesman Sergio Allard said at a news conference that the aircraft had passed a routine inspection in January. He said he could not speculate on the cause of the crash but offered the airline's cooperation to investigators, who will include a team from the U.S. National Transportation Safety Board.

The investigation reportedly will focus on an engine that apparently caught fire as the plane lifted from the tarmac.

The plane crashed about 2:45 p.m. on a hot, clear day at one of Europe's premier airports.

Scores of ambulances, firetrucks and rescuers descended on the site, and helicopters poured fire retardant on the wreckage.

White and gray smoke billowed into the air, visible for miles.

"This is a huge tragedy," said Development Minister Magdalena Alvarez, whose portfolio includes civil aviation.

Rescuers dragged hot-to-the-touch corpses from the wreckage throughout the afternoon, and the few survivors, many burned and with broken bones, were rushed to hospitals.

Some survivors had been hurled from the plane by the impact and landed in a stream, where the water shielded them from burns, rescuers said.

Ervigio Corral, head of Madrid's emergency rescue services, said some survivors were able to walk away from the accident. But, he said, he and other emergency workers encountered a grim scene of widely scattered corpses, many of them those of children.

"The plane was destroyed," he said. He could make out little more than the aircraft's tail.

"It was the closest thing to hell that I have seen," an unidentified Civil Guard police officer told the newspaper El Pais.

Government spokesman Francisco Granados first said 26 survivors were found, but the number was later lowered to 19. There were discrepancies as to the number of people on board, apparently having to do with whether infants were counted in the total, but authorities eventually agreed that at least 153 people died.

The flight was headed for Las Palmas, a popular summer vacation spot on one of the larger islands of the Canary archipelago, off northwestern Africa. Many of those on board were families on vacation, and a number of them had originated their travels in Germany and other parts of northern Europe, officials said. There were two Chileans aboard, the airline said.

Tearful, stunned family members arriving at airports in Madrid and Las Palmas were whisked away to privacy and to await confirmation of their relatives' fate.

One woman, speaking later with reporters at a Madrid hospital, said her twin sister had survived after being thrown from the plane. She had broken ribs and was undergoing surgery but was otherwise fine, said the woman, who gave only her first name, Fernanda.

Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero interrupted his vacation in southern Spain and returned to Madrid, where a makeshift morgue was set up at the main convention center. Relatives began arriving Wednesday night to identify bodies, though many were burned beyond recognition.

"The government is overwhelmed, very affected, as are all Spanish citizens, by this tragedy," Zapatero said in a brief television address.

Spanair had been suffering from a number of setbacks, including heavy debt, declining revenue and orders from the parent company to cut 1,000 jobs and eliminate routes. Spanair pilots earlier Wednesday had threatened to go on strike to protest cutbacks, alleging that management was forcing cabin crews and maintenance personnel to work overtime. SAS has been trying unsuccessfully to sell the money-losing carrier.

Although Barajas airport had not seen a major accident since 1983, the Canary Islands has a troubled record. It was the scene of one of history's worst accidents in 1977, when an American Pan Am jumbo jet collided on the ground with a Dutch KLM carrier, killing more than 580 people.

Deaths, rape lead to scrutiny of psychiatric hospital associated with Dr. Drew Pinsky - Los Angeles Times

Deaths, rape lead to scrutiny of psychiatric hospital associated with Dr. Drew Pinsky - Los Angeles Times

http://www.latimes.com/news/la-me-lasencinas21-2008aug21,0,6124621.story?track=ntothtml

Three adult patients died unexpectedly and a teenage patient was raped after entering a Pasadena psychiatric hospital known for its association with celebrity physician Drew Pinsky, records show.

The incidents occurred in the last five months at Aurora Las Encinas Hospital, which advertises itself as a "world-renowned" haven where patients with acute mental illness and substance abuse problems can recover in safety and comfort. It is a favored destination for rock musicians and actors, among others.

Pinsky, who co-hosts the syndicated radio show "Loveline" and anchors the VH1 reality TV series "Celebrity Rehab With Dr. Drew," is co-medical director of the chemical dependency department and is prominently featured on the hospital's website. He has said he played no direct role in any of the patients' care.

Experts say it is rare to see so many patients at a psychiatric hospital die or be harmed in such a short period. State health inspectors have investigated and faulted the hospital's care in the first two deaths, which occurred within two days in April.

The patients, who were being treated for drug abuse in the chemical dependency unit, both died of apparent drug overdoses, according to coroner's records and the report by inspectors for the state Department of Public Health.

This month, a patient in the NASH House, which treats substance abusers on the hospital grounds, hanged himself from a wooden beam, the Los Angeles County coroner found.

One day after his body was found , a 14-year-old girl was raped by a 16-year-old patient as hospital staffers and the suspect's probation officer slept nearby, according to two sources familiar with the matter. "Not a very good track record, especially at an expensive hospital like that," said Taras Otus, the brother of Timur Otus, the 43-year-old bipolar patient who hanged himself. "I don't understand what's going on there exactly."

The hospital declined to comment on the incidents, citing patient confidentiality.

Pinsky issued a written statement: "I had no direct knowledge and no direct participation in the recent care of the patients in question. Patient confidentiality laws prevent me from discussing these or any other patients who may have been admitted to the facility."

Run by Aurora Behavioral Health Care, the hospital advertises on its website such amenities as a tennis court, swimming pool and manicured garden. Shared rooms cost $840 a night, while private rooms are $1,400 a night. It recently created a deluxe treatment center, offering concierge service, a "personal healthcare attendant" and access to a flat-screen high-definition TV.

In January, the cable network VH1 began airing the first season of a reality show featuring Pinsky and two other Las Encinas employees, which is filmed at Pasadena Recovery Center not far from the hospital.

According to the VH1 website, the show "chronicles the dramatic, unscripted real life experiences of a group of celebrities as they make the life-changing decision to enter a treatment program."

Las Encinas' recent troubles began when Jeffrey Hearn, 28, who was admitted for drug addiction in March, was found unresponsive after 7 a.m. April 11, records show. He was transferred to Huntington Hospital in Pasadena, where he died a day later, according to the coroner's office.

The state investigation, quoting police and hospital staff, found that another patient had "somehow supplied or facilitated contraband prescription medications, Soma and Norco . . . resulting in a medication overdose."

The alleged supplier of the painkillers was a former pharmaceutical representative who knew how to obtain medications, according to the state report.

The day after Hearn died, 23-year-old Alex Clyburn, was admitted to Las Encinas for drug addiction. Clyburn, who was a student at Cal State Northridge, had taken a large dose of OxyContin, a painkiller, and Xanax, an anti-anxiety medication, just before his family brought him in, according to the state and coroner's reports.

The hospital gave him several medications, including those intended to relax muscles, relieve pain, decrease heart rate and lower anxiety, the coroner's office wrote.

Clyburn's mother, Arline, a nurse, was concerned about the mix of prescriptions because of the possibility it would cause respiratory distress, said Sean Burke, a lawyer for Clyburn's parents.

A hospital nurse assured his mother that "they would check on Alex through the course of the night," Burke said. A mental health worker was ordered to check on him every 15 minutes, the state report said.

According to the coroner's report, Clyburn appeared "heavily intoxicated" to other patients and they observed him "staggering to his room."

The next morning, April 14, Clyburn was found dead.. According to the coroner's report, his body was lying face up on a hardwood floor, with vomit trailing from his mouth.

The coroner's report said his death was caused by an overdose of multiple drugs.

According to a state report, a mental health worker did not conduct the 15-minute checks and falsified the patient's record to suggest otherwise. Although the worker wrote that Clyburn was sleeping at 7:15 a.m., a nurse reported at 7:20 a.m. that Clyburn was "unarousable, cold & stiff to touch with a blue face," suggesting that he had been dead for some time.

In a plan submitted to the state on the April deaths, Las Encinas said it fired the mental health worker involved.

The hospital also issued new rules to enhance monitoring of patients and visitors. For example, it mandated frequent checks of routine vital signs and searches of visitors' bags. Las Encinas has had similar problems in the past, state records show. In October 2004, an 18-year-old patient died after being placed in leg restraints for two days, instead of 3 1/2 hours as ordered. Two weeks later, a patient was found dead after drowning himself in a bathtub. The incidents caused the federal government to threaten to pull funding, but the issues were deemed resolved.

The most recent events have already affected the hospital's relationship with an insurer. The mental health subsidiary of UnitedHealth Group, the nation's second largest health insurer, has suspended referrals there until it completes its own probe, said spokesman Brad Lotterman.

Some family members remain distraught and outraged.

Taras Otus said the hospital has not followed up with his family since they were informed of his brother's death. He described Otus as a gregarious struggling actor who worked as an extra and on the set of the television show "Ripley's Believe It or Not." Among his possessions was a note from host Dean Cain, thanking him for ensuring Cain was well-lighted during filming.

Otus, a UCLA graduate, had his first manic episode about seven or eight years ago, his brother said. He was stable for a while, but last summer he started to use Ecstasy and crack, then became suicidal.

At the hospital he had been in a unit where he was on suicide watch, then was transferred into a unit that treats substance abuse, the brother said.

On July 31, the hospital called the family, saying Otus was missing, the brother said. The next morning, hospital employees found his body hanging from the beam of a dilapidated shed on the hospital campus, the brother said.

Otus hanged himself using a white plastic bag, a coroner's report said.

The shed "really should've been torn down 50 years ago," Taras Otus said.

"You'd think there is some kind of moral responsibility to call the family, reach out and say, 'I'm sorry.' But apparently they don't do that at this hospital," the brother said. "They gave us two garbage bags of his stuff, which I guess is what happens."

The parents of Alex Clyburn say they are pursuing legal action.

As a teenager, Clyburn was an Eagle Scout and two-time pitcher of the year at Thousand Oaks High School.

He was recruited to play baseball at Chapman University in Orange County and later transferred to Cal State Northridge, where he studied communications.

In 2006, after Clyburn suffered painful injuries in an auto accident, he became addicted to the painkiller OxyContin, said Burke, the Clyburns' lawyer.

"He was already in rigor mortis when he was found," Burke said. "He had gone for several hours without being checked . . . so it looks like they certainly weren't doing what they said they were going to do."

Contacted last week, Greg Hearn, the father of Jeffrey Hearn, said he had seen no reason to fault the hospital's care.He knew Dr. Pinsky, and had given the hospital a donation "because they took care of my son."

Then he learned from a reporter about the inspection report stating that another patient apparently gave his son the drugs on which he overdosed.

"Wow. I didn't know. It's stuff I didn't know. . . .

"It's so sad . . . I lost my only son."

Political Place

Political Place John McCain now agrees with re-enacting the draft!

from http://www.politicalplace.com/mccain_draft.htm


John McCain claims he's willing to follow Osama bin Laden "to the gates of Hell" but he's not even willing to follow him into Pakistan even if he knew bin Laden was there. Imagine that! It doesn't seem he's actually willing to follow him anywhere. It appears he's more likely to invoke the draft and force our young brave soldiers to do the following for him. Well this may be one sure way to end the wars. The young Americans have been relatively quite about the wars in the Middle East. Just wait until the draft is implemented and witness the outrage that's sure to follow. Do you remember the 1960s like I do? I had recently predicted McCain would call for a draft in order to accomplish all the military action he's pledged to use. There's his wanting to stay in Iraq for 100 years, wanting to bomb, bomb, bomb..... (bomb, bomb Iran), he's now following Barack Obama's lead in Afghanistan, the only valid war, and who knows he'll probably invade Moscow for their attack on Georgia. Now how to pay for these wars. He pledges to keep Bush's tax cuts intact as if owing China half a trillion dollars is nothing! McCain has made it clear he's not one for negotiations. He clearly prefers military action.

Free Wikipedia iPhone App Launches

Free Wikipedia iPhone App Launches

from http://cybernetnews.com/2008/08/20/free-wikipedia-iphone-app-launches/

Ever since Apple’s App Store launched, we have been waiting for a free app to view Wikipedia articles. Up until today, the only Wikipedia application for the iPhone that we knew of was called iWik, but you had to pay for it. Today Wikipanion launches, it’s nearly perfect, and it’s free.

Wikipanion auto completes as you type which means that you may not have to type out the full search term of what you are looking for. One of the things we like about Wikipedia is that there is a table of contents which makes finding the specific information you’re looking for a little easier. Wikipanion incorporates the table of contents and you’ll find it by tapping the bookmark button at the bottom of the screen (shown in the image below).

wikipanion.png

Another nice feature is that you can click the button with the arrow at the bottom of the screen, and you’ll be shown a list of the links that are found within the article. It also works in landscape mode, and you can navigate forward and back. The paid application doesn’t even offer this type of navigation.

One feature that we’re not too fond of is the super large text. It may be nice for some people because it’s easier to read, but there needs to be an option to scale the text down or zoom out. On the bright side, everything loads fast which makes viewing Wikipedia articles on the iPhone easy to do, and the photos are an appropriate size as well.

Just remember that you can tap at the top of the screen (by the time) if you want to quickly navigate to the beginning of an article. You may need this feature if you are viewing some of the longer articles.

Get Wikipanion here (iTunes link)

Apple Acknolwedges Issues with 1st Gen iPod Nano

Apple Acknolwedges Issues with 1st Gen iPod Nano
First generation iPod Nano owners may have a little more to worry about than the simple fact their devices are going on three years old. Japan’s trade ministry recently blamed the battery in the 1st gen iPod nano’s for causing three fires. In addition to the fires, there were two cases of people getting burned from them, just in Japan.

After complaints, and more recently Japan’s report, Apple has acknowledged that there is a problem. According to CNET, Apple addressed the issue saying, “Apple has determined that in very rare cases, batteries in first generation iPod nanos sold between September 2005 and December 2006 can overheat causing failure and deformation of the iPod nano. Apple has received very few reports of such incidents, which have been traced back to a single battery supplier.”

Failure and deformation? It sounds funny that they would discuss the “deformation” of their iPod nano, but if they are catching fire, they would get a little deformed.

For those who still have a 1st generation iPod nano and you are concerned about your device overheating or catching fire, you can contact AppleCare and they’ll work-out getting you a replacement.

I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button | Election 2008 | AlterNet

I Spent Years as a POW with John McCain, and His Finger Should Not Be Near the Red Button | Election 2008 | AlterNet
A fellow Vietnam POW of McCain's warns of the candidate's "quick and explosive temper" and suggests McCain is exaggerating his imprisonment.

By Phillip Butler, Military.com
Posted on August 21, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95825/

John McCain is a long-time acquaintance of mine that goes way back to our time together at the U.S. Naval Academy and as Prisoners of War in Vietnam. He is a man I respect and admire in some ways. But there are a number of reasons why I will not vote for him for President of the United States.

When I was a Plebe (4th classman, or freshman) at the Naval Academy in 1957-58, I was assigned to the 17th Company for my four years there. In those days we had about 3,600 midshipmen spread among 24 companies, thus about 150 midshipmen to a company. As fortune would have it, John, a First Classman (senior) and his room mate lived directly across the hall from me and my two room mates. Believe me when I say that back then I would never in a million or more years have dreamed that the crazy guy across the hall would someday be a Senator and candidate for President!

John was a wild man. He was funny, with a quick wit and he was intelligent. But he was intent on breaking every USNA regulation in our 4 inch thick USNA Regulations book. And I believe he must have come as close to his goal as any midshipman who ever attended the Academy. John had me "coming around" to his room frequently during my plebe year. And on one occasion he took me with him to escape "over the wall" in the dead of night. He had a taxi cab waiting for us that took us to a bar some 7 miles away. John had a few beers, but forbid me to drink (watching out for me I guess) and made me drink cokes. I could tell many other midshipman stories about John that year and he unbelievably managed to graduate though he spent the majority of his first class year on restriction for the stuff he did get caught doing. In fact he barely managed to graduate, standing 5th from the bottom of his 800 man graduating class. I and many others have speculated that the main reason he did graduate was because his father was an Admiral, and also his grandfather, both U.S. Naval Academy graduates.

People often ask if I was a Prisoner of War with John McCain. My answer is always "No - John McCain was a POW with me." The reason is I was there for 8 years and John got there 2 1/2 years later, so he was a POW for 5 1/2 years. And we have our own seniority system, based on time as a POW.

John's treatment as a POW:

1) Was he tortured for 5 years? No. He was subjected to torture and maltreatment during his first 2 years, from September of 1967 to September of 1969. After September of 1969 the Vietnamese stopped the torture and gave us increased food and rudimentary health care. Several hundred of us were captured much earlier. I got there April 20, 1965 so my bad treatment period lasted 4 1/2 years. President Ho Chi Minh died on September 9, 1969, and the new regime that replaced him and his policies was more pragmatic. They realized we were worth a lot as bargaining chips if we were alive. And they were right because eventually Americans gave up on the war and agreed to trade our POW's for their country. A damn good trade in my opinion! But my point here is that John allows the media to make him out to be THE hero POW, which he knows is absolutely not true, to further his political goals.

2) John was badly injured when he was shot down. Both arms were broken and he had other wounds from his ejection. Unfortunately this was often the case -- new POW's arriving with broken bones and serious combat injuries. Many died from their wounds. Medical care was non-existent to rudimentary. Relief from pain was almost never given and often the wounds were used as an available way to torture the POW. Because John's father was the Naval Commander in the Pacific theater, he was exploited with TV interviews while wounded. These film clips have now been widely seen. But it must be known that many POW's suffered similarly, not just John. And many were similarly exploited for political propaganda.

3) John was offered, and refused, "early release." Many of us were given this offer. It meant speaking out against your country and lying about your treatment to the press. You had to "admit" that the U.S. was criminal and that our treatment was "lenient and humane." So I, like numerous others, refused the offer. This was obviously something none of us could accept. Besides, we were bound by our service regulations, Geneva Conventions and loyalties to refuse early release until all the POW's were released, with the sick and wounded going first.

4) John was awarded a Silver Star and Purple Heart for heroism and wounds in combat. This heroism has been played up in the press and in his various political campaigns. But it should be known that there were approximately 600 military POW's in Vietnam. Among all of us, decorations awarded have recently been totaled to the following: Medals of Honor -- 8, Service Crosses -- 42, Silver Stars -- 590, Bronze Stars -- 958 and Purple Hearts -- 1,249. John certainly performed courageously and well. But it must be remembered that he was one hero among many -- not uniquely so as his campaigns would have people believe.

John McCain served his time as a POW with great courage, loyalty and tenacity. More that 600 of us did the same. After our repatriation a census showed that 95% of us had been tortured at least once. The Vietnamese were quite democratic about it. There were many heroes in North Vietnam. I saw heroism every day there. And we motivated each other to endure and succeed far beyond what any of us thought we had in ourselves. Succeeding as a POW is a group sport, not an individual one. We all supported and encouraged each other to survive and succeed. John knows that. He was not an individual POW hero. He was a POW who surmounted the odds with the help of many comrades, as all of us did.

I furthermore believe that having been a POW is no special qualification for being President of the United States. The two jobs are not the same, and POW experience is not, in my opinion, something I would look for in a presidential candidate.

Most of us who survived that experience are now in our late 60's and 70's. Sadly, we have died and are dying off at a greater rate than our non-POW contemporaries. We experienced injuries and malnutrition that are coming home to roost. So I believe John's age (73) and survival expectation are not good for being elected to serve as our President for 4 or more years.

I can verify that John has an infamous reputation for being a hot head. He has a quick and explosive temper that many have experienced first hand. Folks, quite honestly that is not the finger I want next to that red button.

It is also disappointing to see him take on and support Bush's war in Iraq, even stating we might be there for another 100 years. For me John represents the entrenched and bankrupt policies of Washington-as-usual. The past 7 years have proven to be disastrous for our country. And I believe John's views on war, foreign policy, economics, environment, health care, education, national infrastructure and other important areas are much the same as those of the Bush administration.

I'm disappointed to see John represent himself politically in ways that are not accurate. He is not a moderate Republican. On some issues he is a maverick. But his voting record is far to the right. I fear for his nominations to our Supreme Court, and the consequent continuing loss of individual freedoms, especially regarding moral and religious issues. John is not a religious person, but he has taken every opportunity to ally himself with some really obnoxious and crazy fundamentalist ministers lately. I was also disappointed to see him cozy up to Bush because I know he hates that man. He disingenuously and famously put his arm around the guy, even after Bush had intensely disrespected him with lies and slander. So on these and many other instances, I don't see that John is the "straight talk express" he markets himself to be.

Senator John Sidney McCain, III is a remarkable man who has made enormous personal achievements. And he is a man that I am proud to call a fellow POW who "Returned With Honor." That's our POW motto. But since many of you keep asking what I think of him, I've decided to write it out. In short, I think John Sidney McCain, III is a good man, but not someone I will vote for in the upcoming election to be our President of the United States.

AlterNet is a nonprofit organization and does not make political endorsements. The opinions expressed by its writers are their own.

Doctor Phillip Butler is a 1961 graduate of the United States Naval Academy and a former light-attack carrier pilot. In 1965 he was shot down over North Vietnam where he spent eight years as a prisoner of war. He is a highly decorated combat veteran who was awarded two Silver Stars, two Legion of Merits, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Heart medals. After his repatriation in 1973 he earned a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of California at San Diego and became a Navy Organizational Effectiveness consultant. He completed his Navy career in 1981 as a professor of management at the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California. He is now a peace and justice activist with Veterans for Peace.

© 2008 Military.com All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95825/

Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme | Water | AlterNet

Why T. Boone Pickens' 'Clean Energy' Plan Is a Ponzi Scheme | Water | AlterNet

By Scott Thill, AlterNet
Posted on August 21, 2008, Printed on August 21, 2008
http://www.alternet.org/story/95471/

"If you are going out of business, you don't go down with the ship, you get another ship. For us, it's natural gas." -- T. Boone Pickens, "Becoming a Billionaire"

You can't always get what you want, the Rolling Stones counseled. But if you try sometimes, you get what you need. Factor billions of dollars, questionable loyalties and a privatization rap sheet invested more in profit than people into the equation, and you usually can get both what you want and what you need. In the case of hyper-loaded oil tycoon T. Boone Pickens, that means having your cake on climate crisis, fossil fuel addiction, eminent domain, water privatization and corporate earnings -- and eating it too.

In July, the oil magnate unveiled a well-publicized campaign, the Pickens Plan, which begins with an obvious premise: "America is addicted to foreign oil." Pickens' proposal to kick the habit is straightforward and simple: "Building new wind-generation facilities and better utilizing our natural gas resources can replace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports in 10 years."

Sounds fair enough, especially given that Pickens and climate-crisis herald Al Gore have melded minds on the issue. But not hard enough, which is where the cracks in the Pickens Plan begin. "(Gore) asked if we could we join together and do something," Pickens explained to Bloomberg News. "I told him no, because global warming is on page two for me. Page one is foreign oil.''

That page seems to be recently written. As previously noted on either side of the red-blue divide, Pickens has funneled millions into 527s like Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, helping derail John Kerry's bid for the White House in 2004. He simultaneously committed hundreds of thousands on top of that to the election and inauguration of both Bush administrations, both spearheaded by fossil fools whose kinship with foreign oil producers not only launched an invasion into an oil-rich but nevertheless sovereign nation, but also nearly tripled the price of oil in seven years and handed campaign contributors like Exxon the most bloated earnings in corporate history.

Sure, Pickens eventually decided to stop funding political campaigns, but that deathbed conversion happened the same July that the Pickens Plan ramped up its nearly $60 million media blitz.

It gets worse. Pickens is currently the head of BP Capital Management, a secretive hedge fund (aren't they all?) that has extensive connections to the magnate's hated "foreign oil" interests. The most glaring example from its investment portfolio is Halliburton, which was once run by U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney, is currently headquartered not in America but Dubai, and whose main business segments and subsidiaries involve oil exploration, construction, production and refining. And that's not mentioning its resume on rampant fraud and corruption, especially in Iraq but also elsewhere, which has so far cost American taxpayers billions.

But Halliburton isn't the only BP Cap holding that stinks. Pickens is also heavily invested in Schlumberger, the world's largest oil services corporation; nuclear and conventional energy powerhouse Shaw Group; the embattled ex-Halliburton subsidiary Kellog Brown and Root and so on. For a very rich man who decries the influence foreign oil has on American life, Pickens sure hasn't put his money where his mouth is. He's put his money where the oil is.

"Even under the Pickens Plan," explains Treehugger's Matthew McDermott, "the U.S. will be importing a significant amount of oil. It's a step toward energy independence in that it expands renewable energy production, but I think framing this debate in terms of energy independence isn't the way to go. If you want to take a populist angle on this, pushing the very real benefits that wind power and renewables in general can have in local economies stands on much more solid ground."

If Pickens were a populist, that might be true. But he's not; he's a stone-cold capitalist whose taste for profit outweighs his desire for the common good. Pickens may have spent $3 billion on wind farms to generate enough electricity to take the load off natural gas, which is currently used to heat homes and more, but only so that it can be used for cars and trucks.

Those are the shells being moved around in this particular game. But shuffling responsibilities and resources will do nothing to forestall our dystopian environmental future, unless those resources burn clean. And what the Pickens Plan does not mention is that the oil tycoon has been deeply invested in natural gas for decades. If the entire American fleet were to switch over to natural gas, the air would possibly (but not probably) be around 30 percent cleaner in a decade, but Pickens would be richer in much higher percentages. And while the air would only stay cleaner for a short while, Pickens would stay loaded beyond the grave.

"Pickens has stated on numerous occasions that, of course, he's going to make money off the Pickens Plan," adds McDermott. "That's the nature of what he does and has done. But natural gas is probably better used to generate electricity than as a fuel source in cars. A better solution is electrically powered vehicles. While there are still technical issues, if our transportation fleet was all-electric, you could power it from whatever is the most regionally appropriate way of generating electricity cleanly and cheaply. As our ability to generate clean power improves, there would be theoretically no need to change the transportation fleet."

It's much simpler than that, argues Food and Water Watch's Wenonah Hauter. "Gas is not the solution for the future, no matter how the gas industry tries to portray it."

The biggest stain on the Pickens Plan is its architect's distasteful history of water privatization. According to Hauter, it is probably the biggest reason, more than all the aforementioned, not to trust him.

"With the water crisis looming in the future and his track record on selling water regardless of the environmental cost," she asserts, "Pickens will be viewed in the future as irresponsible. His background on promoting renewable energy can't erase his current disregard for the sustainable use of water. He recently supplemented his property holdings in Texas with 200,000 acres of land atop the Ogallala Aquifer. Under Texas law, this purchase entitles Mesa Water, Pickens' new company, to take more than 320,000 acre-feet of water, equivalent to more than 104 million gallons, from the property. The Ogallala is already severely depleted, and it's outrageous that he can stick a pipe in the ground and suck this water out without any environmental impact assessment."

Pickens has used all manner of stratagems to obtain rights to what is not a recreational, but an essential, resource for supporting life on the planet. He has spent more than $100 million to acquire water from outlying areas in Texas to sell to its metropolitan hubs, and although he hasn't yet found a buyer, it's only a matter of time. Blue gold is the new black gold, and it won't be long until the world is thirsty from one end to the other. Using his wind investment to fuel his water privatization has only made things worse.

"Pickens used the enormous wind farm erected on his property as a means to lobby for the right to pipe the Ogallala water to a major metropolitan center," Hauter adds. "He successfully passed a bill through the Texas Legislature to allow a water-supply district to transport alternative energy and water in a single corridor. Pickens also successfully loosened the legal definitions of a water district, allowing him to invoke the right of eminent domain so that he could build the pipeline through the property of several neighboring landowners. We should be concerned with these types of underhanded business dealings."

We should be concerned everywhere they occur, one might add, not just in Texas. That means putting aside the media buzz and fawning articles and seeing the Pickens Plan for what it is: a resource power grab for a post-oil oil tycoon. Natural gas will not save us from environmental catastrophe, nor will it wean us off foreign oil. Wind farms are a great start, but they deserve to be more than leadoff pitchers for natural gas, whose implementation into our fleet will do nothing to kick-start the massive emissions reductions we are going to need. Everything from oceanic dead zones and bizarre storms to desertification and societal collapse are on the burner. And we need to cool it down, rather than heat it up.

In the end, the Pickens Plan will not make that happen, no matter what kind of deathbed conversion T. Boone Pickens is experiencing.

Scott Thill runs the online mag Morphizm.com. His writing has appeared on Salon, XLR8R, All Music Guide, Wired and others.

© 2008 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/95471/

cryptogon.com » Archives » RUSSIA TO CUT ALL MILITARY TIES WITH NATO

cryptogon.com » Archives » RUSSIA TO CUT ALL MILITARY TIES WITH NATO

As this unfolds (into the fall and winter months), here’s something to keep in mind.

The following states now have strategic dependencies on natural gas from Russia:

Germany
Turkey
France
Austria
Poland
Greece

(See: Russian Natural Gas: Regional Dependence)

Via: AP / Guardian:

Russia has informed Norway that it plans to suspend all military ties with NATO, Norway’s Defense Ministry said Wednesday.

The report comes a day after NATO foreign ministers said they would make further ties with Russia dependent on Moscow making good on a pledge to pull its troops back to pre-conflict positions in Georgia. However, they stopped short of calling an immediate halt to all cooperation.

The Nordic country’s embassy in Moscow received a telephone call from “a well-placed official in the Russian Ministry of Defense,” who said Moscow plans “to freeze all military cooperation with NATO and allied countries,” Espen Barth Eide, state secretary with the Norwegian ministry said.

Eide told The Associated Press that the Russian official notified Norway it will receive a written note about this soon. He said Norwegian diplomats in Moscow would meet Russian officials on Thursday morning to clarify the implications of the freeze.

“It is our understanding that other NATO countries will receive similar notes,” Eide said. The ministry said the Russian official is known to the embassy, but Norway declined to provide a name or any further identifying information.

A Kremlin official declined to comment on the report. But the Interfax news agency, citing what it called a military-diplomatic source in Moscow whom it did not identify, reported that Russia is reviewing its 2008 military cooperation plans with NATO.

Officials at NATO headquarters in Brussels said Moscow had not informed the alliance it was taking such a step.

Washington described the reported move as unfortunate.

“If this indeed is the case, it would be unfortunate. We need to work with Russia on a range of security issues, but we are obviously very concerned about Russian behavior in Georgia,” U.S. State Department spokesman Robert Wood said.

The ITAR-Tass and RIA-Novosti news agencies, citing an unidentified member of the Russian mission to NATO in Brussels, reported that Russia’s NATO envoy Dmitry Rogozin has been called back to Moscow for consultations on relations and between Russia and NATO, including military cooperation.

RIA-Novosti said Rogozin would return to Moscow late this week.

Eide said he hoped NATO and Moscow would get back on track with dialogue and cooperation but said that Russia would first have to comply with a cease-fire in Georgia.

“I regret the situation has come to this,” he said.

The hostilities between Russia and Georgia began earlier this month when Georgia cracked down on South Ossetia. The region is internationally recognized as being within Georgian borders but leans toward Moscow and regards itself as independent. Russia answered by sending its troops and tanks across the Georgian border.

This Is A Tale of US Expansion Not Russian Aggression | AfterDowningStreet.org

This Is A Tale of US Expansion Not Russian Aggression | AfterDowningStreet.org

This is a tale of US expansion not Russian aggression
War in the Caucasus is as much the product of an American imperial drive as local conflicts. It's likely to be a taste of things to come
Seumas Milne | The Guardian

The outcome of six grim days of bloodshed in the Caucasus has triggered an outpouring of the most nauseating hypocrisy from western politicians and their captive media. As talking heads thundered against Russian imperialism and brutal disproportionality, US vice-president Dick Cheney, faithfully echoed by Gordon Brown and David Miliband, declared that "Russian aggression must not go unanswered". George Bush denounced Russia for having "invaded a sovereign neighbouring state" and threatening "a democratic government". Such an action, he insisted, "is unacceptable in the 21st century".

Could these by any chance be the leaders of the same governments that in 2003 invaded and occupied - along with Georgia, as luck would have it - the sovereign state of Iraq on a false pretext at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives? Or even the two governments that blocked a ceasefire in the summer of 2006 as Israel pulverised Lebanon's infrastructure and killed more than a thousand civilians in retaliation for the capture or killing of five soldiers?

You'd be hard put to recall after all the fury over Russian aggression that it was actually Georgia that began the war last Thursday with an all-out attack on South Ossetia to "restore constitutional order" - in other words, rule over an area it has never controlled since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Nor, amid the outrage at Russian bombardments, have there been much more than the briefest references to the atrocities committed by Georgian forces against citizens it claims as its own in South Ossetia's capital Tskhinvali. Several hundred civilians were killed there by Georgian troops last week, along with Russian soldiers operating under a 1990s peace agreement: "I saw a Georgian soldier throw a grenade into a basement full of women and children," one Tskhinvali resident, Saramat Tskhovredov, told reporters on Tuesday.

Might it be because Georgia is what Jim Murphy, Britain's minister for Europe, called a "small beautiful democracy". Well it's certainly small and beautiful, but both the current president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and his predecessor came to power in western-backed coups, the most recent prettified as a "Rose revolution". Saakashvili was then initially rubber-stamped into office with 96% of the vote before establishing what the International Crisis Group recently described as an "increasingly authoritarian" government, violently cracking down on opposition dissent and independent media last November. "Democratic" simply seems to mean "pro-western" in these cases.

The long-running dispute over South Ossetia - as well as Abkhazia, the other contested region of Georgia - is the inevitable consequence of the breakup of the Soviet Union. As in the case of Yugoslavia, minorities who were happy enough to live on either side of an internal boundary that made little difference to their lives feel quite differently when they find themselves on the wrong side of an international state border.

Such problems would be hard enough to settle through negotiation in any circumstances. But add in the tireless US promotion of Georgia as a pro-western, anti-Russian forward base in the region, its efforts to bring Georgia into Nato, the routing of a key Caspian oil pipeline through its territory aimed at weakening Russia's control of energy supplies, and the US-sponsored recognition of the independence of Kosovo - whose status Russia had explicitly linked to that of South Ossetia and Abkhazia - and conflict was only a matter of time.

The CIA has in fact been closely involved in Georgia since the Soviet collapse. But under the Bush administration, Georgia has become a fully fledged US satellite. Georgia's forces are armed and trained by the US and Israel. It has the third-largest military contingent in Iraq - hence the US need to airlift 800 of them back to fight the Russians at the weekend. Saakashvili's links with the neoconservatives in Washington are particularly close: the lobbying firm headed by US Republican candidate John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, has been paid nearly $900,000 by the Georgian government since 2004.

But underlying the conflict of the past week has also been the Bush administration's wider, explicit determination to enforce US global hegemony and prevent any regional challenge, particularly from a resurgent Russia. That aim was first spelled out when Cheney was defence secretary under Bush's father, but its full impact has only been felt as Russia has begun to recover from the disintegration of the 1990s.

Over the past decade, Nato's relentless eastward expansion has brought the western military alliance hard up against Russia's borders and deep into former Soviet territory. American military bases have spread across eastern Europe and central Asia, as the US has helped install one anti-Russian client government after another through a series of colour-coded revolutions. Now the Bush administration is preparing to site a missile defence system in eastern Europe transparently targeted at Russia.

By any sensible reckoning, this is not a story of Russian aggression, but of US imperial expansion and ever tighter encirclement of Russia by a potentially hostile power. That a stronger Russia has now used the South Ossetian imbroglio to put a check on that expansion should hardly come as a surprise. What is harder to work out is why Saakashvili launched last week's attack and whether he was given any encouragement by his friends in Washington.

If so, it has spectacularly backfired, at savage human cost. And despite Bush's attempts to talk tough yesterday, the war has also exposed the limits of US power in the region. As long as Georgia proper's independence is respected - best protected by opting for neutrality - that should be no bad thing. Unipolar domination of the world has squeezed the space for genuine self-determination and the return of some counterweight has to be welcome. But the process of adjustment also brings huge dangers. If Georgia had been a member of Nato, this week's conflict would have risked a far sharper escalation. That would be even more obvious in the case of Ukraine - which yesterday gave a warning of the potential for future confrontation when its pro-western president threatened to restrict the movement of Russian ships in and out of their Crimean base in Sevastopol. As great power conflict returns, South Ossetia is likely to be only a taste of things to come.

various headlines

Giuliani named keynote speaker at GOP convention

  Notorious cross-dresser and miserable failure of a Presidential candidate, Rudy Giuliani, has been chosen to give the keynote speech in Minneapolis-St. Paul on Sept. 2. For a good idea of what 9iu11ani will say, see: here.

[Newsday]

UPDATE: It looks like Rudy's first gig as GOP keynote speaker, a conference call with the press today, didn't go so well. Politico's Ben Smith is reporting that McCain goons cut the line of Jewish Telegraphic Agency reporter Ron Kampeas after he began pressing 9Iu11ani on some of his shady business dealings.

Rudy Giuliani's appearance on a McCain conference call got off to a rocky start when Ron Kampeas, the Washington, D.C. of the Jewish Telegraphic Agency, compared an Obama advisor's trip to Syria — the subject of the call — to Giuliani's and McCain adviser Randy Scheunemann's paid work on behalf of Georgia (in Scheunemann's case) and Venezuela's Citgo and the Saudi government (in the case of Giuliani's law firm).

"You're making an issue of him taking a hotel room?" Kampeas asked — and then dropped off the call mid-sentence.

"I think they cut me off," he said in an email just now.

Scheunemann noted that his lobbying contract, unlike Obama advisor Daniel Kurtzer's trip to Syria, was publicly disclosed and not "covert." Giuliani said that Citgo, which is owned by the Venezuelan government, is an "American company."

"I never represented Saudi Arabia," he said.

The Associated Press reported that Bracewell & Giuliani, a Texas-based energy firm, has represented Saudi Arabia.


Bush Administration Proposal Guts Endangered Species Act, Whitehouse Says

Bush Administration Proposal Guts Endangered Species Act, Whitehouse Says
Interior Dept. Wants to End Independent Scientific Review of Projects' Harm to Protected Wildlife Populations

A Bush Administration proposal to allow individual government agencies, rather than scientists from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, to decide whether vulnerable wildlife would be harmed by new construction projects badly undermines the Endangered Species Act, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) said today.


read more


Goodyear to Close 92 US Stores, Cut Jobs

    Detroit - Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co said it would close 12 percent, or 92, of its company-owned U.S. stores and cut 600 full- and part-time jobs as the U.S. economic downturn put more pressure on the company.

    "In the current economic condition, people are driving less and it obviously affects every facet of the U.S. auto industry, including how often they replace tires or buy new cars," Goodyear spokesman Keith Price said on Tuesday after the announcement.


read more


Top Medical Journal Warns Supreme Court Against Banning FDA Lawsuits

    Washington - Top doctors at the helm of one of the nation's most influential medical journals are giving the Supreme Court some unsolicited legal advice about a major case.

    The Food and Drug Administration "is in no position" to guarantee drug safety, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine said in a friend-of-the-court brief. Lawsuits can serve as "a vital deterrent" and protect consumers if drug companies don't disclose risks.


read more


This Just In: Developers More Powerful, Connected Than Average Residents

2008_8_20.construction.jpgThe 50th Ward is corrupt, Alderman Bernie Stone may or may not be in the pockets of developers rather than representing the wants of his constituents, according to a longass article in the Trib today. Zoning rules are widely flouted, with developers not notifying residents of new plans or putting up required signs.

The Tribune has found that zoning rules have been ignored or changed to make it easier for developers and harder for residents to have a meaningful say in what gets built on their streets.

Sadface. The story focuses on a proposed senior housing facility in West Rogers Park. The developer's lawyer? James Banks and Samuel Banks, nephew and brother of Alderman William Banks, who is the head of the zoning committee. Some "neighborhood activists" oppose the construction, saying the building will be far taller than everything around it and will lead to increased an unwanted traffic, and they went to the zoning committee meeting to have their complaints heard. Which...didn't work out like that.
[50th Ward resident Hugh Devlin]...told the committee that he wanted to note the multiple political donations to his alderman from the Banks law firm and from the project architect's. State records show more than $3,000 in donations to Stone from Samuel Banks.

[Alderman Gene] Schulter cut off Devlin: "That's totally, totally out of line. Totally out of line. We are talking about the project before the committee at this time . . . This is totally irrelevant."
The committee unanimously approved the construction. [Trib, photo by bowl rider]





Dogs of War: Blackwater as Wal-Mart

Dogs of War: Blackwater as Wal-Mart
by David Isenberg
Washington (UPI) Aug 18, 2008
Say whatever you want about Blackwater Worldwide -- and hardly a day goes by when something isn't being said about it -- it does not put all its eggs in one basket. Long before the company's recent announcement that it would seek to de-emphasize its personal security work in the future, it had created a diversified corporate structure. To use military terminology, it is a combined arms operation.

While most attention is focused on Blackwater Security Consulting, the unit that provides contractors for work in Iraq and elsewhere, there is far more to it than that. Blackwater has long sought to be a one-stop shopping center, a sort of Wal-Mart for all the U.S. government's military outsourcing needs, and a review of its business units shows it has gone a long way toward meeting that goal.

Consider Greystone Ltd., which is a Blackwater entity. A private security service, it is registered in Barbados and employs third-country nationals for offshore security work. Its Web site advertises its ability to maintain and train "a workforce drawn from a diverse base of former special operations, defense, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals ready on a moment's notice for global deployment." Tasks can be from very small-scale up to major operations to facilitate large-scale stability operations requiring large numbers of people to assist in securing a region.

Need something delivered by air? Look no further than Aviation Worldwide Services. AWS was founded by Richard Pere and Tim Childrey, and is based in Melbourne, Fla. Several of the MD-530 helicopters used by Blackwater Security Consulting in Iraq are also operated by AWS.

AWS owns and operates three subsidiaries: STI Aviation Inc., Air Quest Inc. and Presidential Airways Inc. In April 2003 it was acquired by Blackwater USA. Blackwater also operates an airport at its North Carolina facility, called Blackwater Airstrip Airport.

Of course, some of these units have had their own controversies.

Presidential Airways is a charter cargo and passenger airline based at Melbourne International Airport. It holds a Secret Facility Clearance from the Pentagon. It operates several CASA 212 aircraft in addition to a Boeing 767.

Among other services, according to a European Parliament report, Presidential Airways has provided rendition flights to the CIA.

One of the firm's aircraft crashed on Nov. 27, 2004, in Afghanistan; it had been a contract flight for the U.S. Air Force en route from Bagram to Farah. All aboard, three soldiers and three civilian crew members were killed. Several of their survivors filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Presidential in October 2005.

In December 2006 the National Transportation Safety Board released a critical report about the crash. It raised many questions about the safety of U.S. military personnel due to lack of oversight of contractors.

The NTSB found that the crew deliberately avoided the standard route and took a joy ride in another direction, eventually becoming trapped in a canyon and slamming into a mountainside. The report said that if the company had proper procedures for tracking aircraft and communicating with them, rescuers would have arrived in time to help Army Spc. Harley Miller, who survived.

Presidential Airways was faulted for failing "to provide sufficient oversight of its flight crews, did not ensure that specific routes were defined and flown and had inadequate communications and flight-locating capability."

Blackwater said it is not liable for casualties in a war zone and that the NTSB report's findings were politically motivated.

Still, Uncle Sam finds Presidential Airways useful enough that in late September 2007 it received a $92 million contract from the Pentagon for air transportation in Afghanistan, Kyrgyzstan, Pakistan and Uzbekistan.

STI Aviation focuses on aircraft maintenance and is a Federal Aviation Administration-certified repair station.

Many of Blackwater's aircraft are registered to Blackwater affiliate EP Aviation LLC, named for Blackwater's owner, Erik Prince.

So Blackwater is on the ground and in the air. What about the sea? It has that covered, too. Blackwater Maritime Security Services offers tactical training for maritime force protection units. It has trained Greek security forces for the 2004 Olympics and Azerbaijan's Naval Sea Commandos.

Blackwater's facilities include a man-made lake with stacked containers simulating a ship for maritime assaults. Blackwater received a contract to train U.S. Navy sailors following the attack on the USS Cole in 2000.

And, of course, given that much American economic news these days deals with housing and real estate issues, it is only appropriate that Blackwater should have created the Raven Development Group. RDG got its start in 1997 by designing and building the world's largest private tactical training facility: Blackwater USA.

Among other things, RDG offers general contracting, construction management, designing and building services to its clients.

And then there is the ultimate PMC -- no, not private military contractor. Rather it is the Prince Manufacturing Corp., which seems, in part, to be a continuation of the successful family business started by Blackwater founder Erik Prince's father, Edgar. Its Web site notes, "The Prince family's legacy extends to Prince Manufacturing. Prince Manufacturing will rewrite the way contract manufacturing is done. We continue to add new capabilities to ensure that we can be your single source contract manufacturing solution provider with complete solutions throughout the supply chain, all under one corporate roof."

Not only does it have subsidiaries in Indiana and North Carolina, but also in Oxford and Mexico.

All in all, according to a recent Small Business Administration report, Blackwater USA, which changed its name to Blackwater Worldwide in 2007, appears to have 29 different affiliates. Considering Blackwater only started in 1997, that makes Erik Prince one very capable man.

(U.S. Navy veteran David Isenberg is a military affairs analyst. He is an adjunct scholar with the Cato Institute, a correspondent for Asia Times and the author of a forthcoming book, "Shadow Force: Private Security Contractors in Iraq." His "Dogs of War" column, analyzing developments in the private security and military sector, usually appears every Friday.)

Real wages fall as record price hikes hit US workers

Real wages fall as record price hikes hit US workers

By Andre Damon
21 August 2008


US prices jumped in July by their highest month-to-month rate since 1981, in one of the sharpest inflation spikes since the Second World War.

The July Producer Prices index, reported Tuesday by the Bureau of Labor Statistics, rose by 1.2 percent, on top of a 1.8 percent increase in June. “Core” prices, which exclude food and energy, shot up by .7 percent, more than triple economists’ expectations. Producer prices were up 9.8 percent from a year ago.

“There is no doubt we’re in a period of stagflation,” Peter Kretzmer, a senior economist at Bank of America, told Bloomberg News, referring to the combination of stagnant growth and inflation, which characterized the US economy in the 1970s.

The consumer price statistics released last Thursday mirrored the producer price statistics. Seasonally-adjusted consumer prices jumped .8 percent last month—more than double earlier predictions—and were up 5.6 percent since July 2007. Even so, inflation has picked up in recent months. While the Consumer Price Index rose at a comparatively low annualized rate of only 2.8 percent in the first quarter, it shot up at an annualized rate of ten percent in the past three months.

The living standards of workers continue to decline as the purchasing power of their wages falls and pay increases fail to keep up with inflation. The most recent Bureau of Labor statistics report found that real average weekly earnings fell by .8 percent from June to July. Over the past year, weekly earnings fell by 3.1 percent. Thus, the average household now earns a staggering $1,500 less than it would if wages had kept pace with inflation over the past twelve months.

Skyrocketing prices, falling wages, rising unemployment, and falling home values are all lining up to create a massive social catastrophe. According to Credit Suisse, the credit analyst, there will be some 6.5 million home foreclosures by 2012, amounting to 12.7 percent of homeowners with mortgages. While arranging multi-billion dollar bailout of big investors involved in the mortgage meltdown, the Democrats and Republicans have offered no relief for working people facing the loss of their homes and unsustainable levels of debt.

The housing market, one of the main components of the US slowdown, showed no signs of improvement, as the construction of new homes fell 30 percent lower than a year ago. “A [housing market] recovery will not happen this year,’’ Russell Price, a senior economist at H&R Block told Bloomberg News. “Not only are mortgage rates creeping up, but financing is becoming more difficult for a lot of people. Builders will continue to pull back.’’

The unexpectedly high US inflation statistics followed the announcement last week that the Eurozone economy contracted for the first time since the creation of the European Monetary Union in 1999. Combined output in the fifteen Eurozone counties fell by .2 percent in the second quarter. Germany was particularly hard hit, with output falling by .5 percent in the second quarter. France’s economy contracted by .3 percent and Italy’s by .3 percent.

The British, Spanish, Greek, and Austrian economies managed to avoid contracting, but all grew at rates lower than one percent. The weaker position of the Euro—which has helped keep the US economy from shrinking in the last several quarters—has dragged down growth of the EU’s largest exporters: Germany, France, and Italy.

Meanwhile, the Japanese economy contracted .6 percent in the second quarter, according to figures released last week by the government. Japan is the world’s second-largest economy and the fourth-largest exporter. Thus far, all eight of the world’s largest exporters—excluding China—have announced at least one quarter of stagnation or negative growth.

Consumer Price inflation also reached its highest level since the creation of the Euro. Consumer prices rose by 4.1 percent in the second quarter, more than double the European Union’s inflation target of 2 percent.

Despite facing similar difficulties—slowing growth and rising prices—the US and European Central banks have reacted in completely opposite ways. In the past year, the US Federal Reserve has cut its benchmark Federal Funds Rate from 5.25 to 2 percent. The European Central Bank has on the other hand proceeded to raise rates to 4.25 percent.

This is at least partially due to the differing levels of success the European and US corporate elite have enjoyed in suppressing the wage demands of the working class in their respective countries. Thus far, the American ruling class, with the full assistance of the trade union bureaucracy, has kept wage increases well below the rate of inflation despite widespread anger over high prices and eroding living standards. By contrast, German wages have risen at the same rate as inflation, which reached an annual rate 3.5 percent in the second quarter.

The Wall Street Journal, noting the results of its recent survey of leading economists, observed that “part of the reason for the disparity [in central bank policy] is the difference between the European and US work forces. Some 94 percent of respondents said the US’s risk of a wage-price spiral, where pressures from labor costs and high prices push each other up, is either minor or nonexistent. But 34 percent said that the Eurozone countries face a major risk of a wage-price spiral, and 9 percent said it is already beginning.”

The Federal Reserve, facing a financial meltdown that would cost the US government hundreds of billions, if not trillions, of dollars, has pumped huge amounts of cash into the US economy. It has kept interest rates extremely low, extended billions of dollars in loans to Wall Street, and all but guaranteed that it would bail out any large financial firms that run into trouble. This, combined with rising commodity prices, has contributed to persistently high inflation rates despite radically falling wages.

But, despite all this, the Fed has been unable to stabilize the financial sector. In recent days, the conditions facing major finance companies have only worsened. On Wednesday the Treasury Department backed away from its previous assertions that it would not bail out Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, after the two firms saw their stock values plunge more than thirty percent since Monday.

Meanwhile, Kenneth Rogoff, the former IMF chief economist, said Tuesday that “the worst is yet to come,” and that another major financial firm is likely to collapse in the next few months. “We’re not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months,” he said at a conference in Singapore. “We’re going to see a whopper, we’re going to see a big one, one of the big investment banks or big banks.”

US oil pipeline politics and the Russia-Georgia conflict

US oil pipeline politics and the Russia-Georgia conflict

By Alex Lantier
21 August 2008


US media claims about Georgian democracy notwithstanding, a key factor in US backing for Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili in his conflict with Russia has been the emergence of Georgia as a key transit country for oil and gas exports from the Caucasus and the Caspian Sea basin.

The August 7 outbreak of hostilities between Georgia and Russia, as Georgia bombarded Russian peacekeepers in the breakaway Georgian region of South Ossetia, is the predictable result of the US’s aggressive use of pipeline politics and proxy states to assert its commercial and military influence in Central Asia.

The broad outlines of this policy have governed US relations with the former Soviet republics ever since the 1991 collapse of the USSR. At the time, US investors rushed in to acquire large portions of the former USSR’s economy, notably the oil and gas industries of the Caspian Basin. In the early 1990s, Western energy companies acquired stakes in developing numerous projects, such the Tengiz oil field in Kazakhstan, the Azeri-Chirag-Guneshli (ACG) fields in Azerbaijan, and the Dauletabad natural gas field in Turkmenistan.

From the outset, US firms and advisors pressed the ex-Soviet states to agree to pipeline routes bypassing countries the US viewed as inimical to its interests, notably Russia and Iran. Such pipelines not only deprived US rivals of transit fees and political leverage arising from their ability to cut off pipeline flows, but also gave Washington the opportunity to weld together pro-US regional alliances.

In the mid-1990s, the administration of US President Bill Clinton settled on two main pipeline projects to export Caspian oil and gas while bypassing the territories of Russia, Iran and China. The first was a plan to export Turkmen gas through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ports on the Indian Ocean—a plan that led Washington to support the Taliban in 1995-6 in an attempt to unify and pacify Afghanistan so that the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan (TAP) pipeline could be built. The plan ultimately foundered on the Taliban’s inability to conquer northern Afghanistan.

The other plan was to build a pipeline westward through small, pro-US states in the Caucasus—Georgia and Azerbaijan. Together with an undersea trans-Caspian pipeline connecting Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan on the Caspian’s eastern shore with Azerbaijan on the western shore, the Baku (Azerbaijan)-Tbilisi (Georgia)-Ceyhan (Turkey) pipeline would send a substantial fraction of Caspian energy exports to the Mediterranean. This pipeline was conceived of as a major blow, in particular, to Russia’s longstanding domination of energy routes from the Caspian to the West.

The politically-driven character of the project was undeniable. As the Christian Science Monitor recently noted, “The $4 billion BTC pipeline, managed by and 30 percent owned by British Petroleum, was routed through Georgia to avoid sending Caspian oil through Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, or Russia. A 10-mile pipeline could have connected Caspian oil to the well-developed Iranian pipeline system.”

Clinton administration officials relentlessly lobbied for the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan (BTC) pipeline, which would pipe oil from the ACG fields near the Azeri capital of Baku through the Georgian capital of Tbilisi to the Mediterranean port of Ceyhan. After Azerbaijan, Georgia and Turkey signed an intergovernmental agreement in favor of the BTC pipeline, Clinton said in 2000 that the pipeline represented “the most important achievement at the end of the twentieth century.”

As it took office in 2001, the Bush administration planned on even more aggressive use of US military power and strategic influence to carry out the same fundamental policy. Many of its top officials had been intimately involved in US energy companies’ initial penetration of the USSR: National Security Advisor and later Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice served on the board of US oil major Chevron from 1991 to 2001 as an expert on the USSR, when Chevron was acquiring a major stake in the Tengiz oil field.

Vice President Dick Cheney had served as CEO of oil infrastructure company Halliburton and as a member of Kazakhstan’s Oil Advisory Board, a group set up by the Kazakh government after the fall of the USSR that included the CEOs of oil majors Chevron and Texaco. In the 1990s, Cheney had also used his political pull, as former US secretary of defense in the administration of the senior George Bush, to arrange interviews between Halliburton executives and the Azeri government.

The Bush administration faced a significantly different government in Russia: President Boris Yeltsin had transferred power in 2000 to his chosen successor, Vladimir Putin. Thanks to its oil revenues, the Russian economy had bottomed out from the devastating collapse that followed the fall of the USSR, and Putin planned to carry out a more independent and assertive Russian foreign policy. The recovery picked up steam after Putin’s arrival in power, as world oil prices began to rise.

In the aftermath of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, however, Putin acquiesced to US deployments to military bases in the Caspian region, ostensibly as logistics bases for US military action against the Taliban in Afghanistan. However, these deployments also allowed the US to assert its pipeline interests—most notably leading to the temporary demise of Chinese plans to build a “Pan Asian Global Energy Bridge,” a competing network of Chinese-run pipelines linking the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia to China’s Pacific Coast.

Georgia soon emerged as a major transit country for Western pipeline plans. In 2002 in London, an international consortium was founded to begin construction of the BTC oil pipeline, as well as a natural gas pipeline (BTE) running from Azerbaijan’s Shah Deniz gas fields through Baku and Tbilisi to the eastern Turkish city of Erzurum. Plans were also made to connect the BTE pipeline to the European market via a pipeline extending from Erzurum to Vienna, the so-called “Nabucco” pipeline.

Georgia subsequently became the site of the first major open confrontation between Russia and the US in the region, the December 2003 “Rose Revolution” that displaced Georgian President Eduard Shevardnadze. In the aftermath of parliamentary elections whose results were disputed by the US-backed opposition, the opposition staged a series of demonstrations and ultimately took over Parliament. The Georgian military, which had received extensive US training, stood aside, while top US officials, including then-Secretary of State Colin Powell, personally intervened to order Shevardnadze to step down.

This made-in-the-USA coup brought to power a series of former Shevardnadze associates who were more closely associated with the US, most notably Columbia University-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili. Saakashvili formally assumed the Georgian presidency in January 2004.

One of the main disagreements between Shevardnadze and Saakashvili in the 2003 parliamentary campaign had been the question of how to deal with ethnic-minority regions of Georgia. Shevardnadze allied himself with Adjarian politician Aslan Abashidze, while Saakashvili stridently advocated that Tbilisi exercise total control over all of its territory. This represented a definite concession by Shevardnadze to Moscow, which had considerable influence in breakaway or autonomous regions of Georgia, such as Adjaria, Abkhazia, and South Ossetia.

In 2004, Saakashvili successfully forced Abashidze to flee by threatening Adjaria with invasion by the Georgian army. Throughout his presidency, he issued threats against South Ossetia and Abkhazia, despite the presence of Russian peacekeepers there.

From the point of view of US oil interests, the Rose Revolution was perfectly timed. It came one year before the 2005 opening of the BTC pipeline, a project whose value to US foreign policy depended on the Georgian government being independent from Russian pressure. The Rose Revolution succeeded in pushing the Georgian government in this direction, replacing Shevardnadze with a president firmly committed to Georgian nationalism and to eradicating Russia’s influence in Georgia. Under Saakashvili, Russian influence was limited to a few enclaves living under constant threat of Georgian attack.

The broader developments in Central Asian pipeline politics since the Rose Revolution have not favored the US—a fact that no doubt played a role in US calculations to back Saakashvili in an increasingly reckless confrontation with Moscow. The growth of resistance to the US occupation of Afghanistan has precluded all plans for constructing a TAP pipeline south from Central Asia to the Indian Ocean. As a result, the Caucasian pipelines through Georgia represent the only viable path for Central Asian oil and gas exports that is acceptable to Washington.

In December 2007, Russia signed an agreement with Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan to build a new natural gas pipeline along the eastern Caspian Sea coast towards Russia. The construction of the pipeline, which would have an initial export capacity of 20 billion cubic meters per year, was seen as a major blow to US hopes that Central Asian governments would commit substantial oil and gas resources to a potential trans-Caspian pipeline linked to the existing, US-backed pipelines in the Caucasus.

China, whose attempts at securing energy supplies through pipelines from Central Asia into neighboring western China came to an abrupt halt after the US’s 2001 deployments to Central Asia, has since concluded a number of pipeline deals. A Kazakhstan-China oil pipeline, linking Kazakh fields in the northern Caspian region to the Chinese pipeline network in northwestern China’s Xinjiang Autonomous Region, is currently under construction and will become operational in October 2009. A parallel natural gas pipeline, with a branch downwards towards fields in Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, is also under construction.

US exploits Georgia crisis to push through Polish missile deal

US exploits Georgia crisis to push through Polish missile deal

By Stefan Steinberg
21 August 2008

Use this version to print | Send this link by email | Email the author

The agreement signed Wednesday by the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski to establish a missile defence shield on Polish soil marks a major turning point in international political relations.

The deal permits the US to set up a new missile system in the heart of Europe. In addition, Poland will receive 96 Patriot missiles, a permanent garrison of American troops and, most significantly, Washington’s commitment to come to the country’s defence, independently of the NATO alliance.

From its inception, the US government has insisted that the proposal to set up a missile defence system in Eastern Europe was strictly of a defensive character. The circumstances under which the deal was rushed through last week—after 18 months of intense negotiations between Washington and Warsaw—only serves to confirm the opposite: the missile system is of an offensive character and is designed for use against Russia.

The pact signed by Rice and Sikorski dramatically increases the possibility of a confrontation between the two nations with the world’s biggest arsenals of nuclear weapons—Russia and the US—with central Europe as a primary battlefield.

Both Warsaw and Washington have sought to deny that the closing of the deal last week was bound up with the conflict between Georgia and Russia. Following its finalisation last Thursday, the chief US negotiator, John Rood, told the press: “This is not linked to the situation in Georgia”.

In Washington, White House spokesperson Dana Perino assured journalists that the timing of the deal was not meant to further antagonise Russia. “In no way is the president’s plan for missile defence aimed at Russia,” she said. “The purpose of missile defence is to protect our European allies from any rogue threats.”

Just before signing the missile deal, Rice reiterated that the system was designed to counter threats from Iran and North Korea and told reporters: “It is not aimed in any way at Russia.” Following the signing of the agreement on Wednesday, Polish President Lech Kaczynski again declared that the missile shield was of purely a defensive system and not a threat to its neighbours.

None of these claims are credible.

The deal was reached between the Polish and US governments last Thursday, just days after the outbreak of hostilities in Georgia and on the heels of a concerted anti-Russian campaign led by the Polish President Lech Kaczynski. Just two days before the finalisation of the missile pact, Kaczynski appeared alongside Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili at an anti-Russian rally in Tbilisi to proclaim, “We are here to take up the fight (against Russia).”

For its part, the conservative Polish daily Gazeta Wyborcza, which welcomes the missile system, pointed candidly to the direct link between the deal and the conflict in the Caucasus: “Contrary to the official version presented by Prime Minister Tusk and the US State Department, the war in Georgia played a key role in accelerating the Polish-American negotiations on the defence shield. It is the war that has prompted Tusk to give the go-ahead for the signing of the agreement.”

In fact, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has himself made it clear that the US pledge to back Warsaw in the event of Russian aggression was decisive in winning Polish acceptance of the deal. Tusk declared that he only agreed to host the US defence shield on the condition that the US augment Poland’s defences with Patriot missiles, which are intended to combat any threat from Russia. At one time touted as possible alternatives to the rabidly nationalist Polish President Kaczynski, Prime Minister Tusk and Foreign Minister Sikorski have revealed themselves to be politicians of the same stripe.

Increased danger of nuclear confrontation

The American State Department has always insisted that the 10 interceptor missiles that are to be installed at a base in Poland, just 115 miles from Russia’s westernmost frontier, are aimed at countering potential missile attacks from so called “rogue states” such as Iran and North Korea. Washington has already reached an agreement with Prague to place the second component of the missile defence shield, a radar tracking system, in the Czech Republic to Poland’s south-west.

US claims that the missiles system is directed at Iran were recently debunked in an article published in the Blätter für deutsche and internationale Politik, Germany’s most widely read political and foreign policy journal.

In a section of his essay entitled “The strategic logic of the missile shield,” author Hauke Ritz stresses that the stationing of the system in Poland and the Czech Republic “is not at all designed to intercept Iranian missiles”.

Ritz points out that the Iranian military lacks any missiles with a range capable of reaching Europe and that it would require a long period of time to develop and build them. He also notes that the US State Department ruled out a Russian proposal for setting up a joint US-Russian anti-missile system in Azerbaijan, which could intercept and destroy any Iranian missile at the start of its flight path.

The author concludes: “The fact that the US ruled out this compromise proposal permits only one conclusion: that the missile shield is directed first and foremost not against Iran, but against Russia. This is underlined by the fact that the other bases for the missile system are also located in border regions to Russia, for example Alaska.”

In describing the role of the missile system, the article establishes that it is intended not as a deterrent against nuclear attack — along the lines of the Cold War build-up of a system of “mutually assured destruction” (MAD) - but rather as an essential component of a US first-strike strategy.

“The strategic significance of the system consists of intercepting those few dozen missiles Moscow is capable of launching following an American first strike,” Ritz writes. “The missile system is therefore a crucial element in the attempt to develop a nuclear first strike capacity against Russia. The original plan is for the stationing of just ten interceptor missiles in Poland. But once the system is established, their number could be easily increased.”

Finally, the author refers to an article in the US magazine Foreign Affairs in 2006 entitled “The Rise of U.S. Nuclear Primacy,” which argues that the US currently has unique advantages in conducting nuclear war. Ritz concludes: “This article makes very clear the actual function of the missile system: it is to guarantee the US the capacity to carry out nuclear war without the risk of a counter-strike. If this capacity can be achieved then it can be employed as a geopolitical argument, in order to implement national interests.”

Ritz’s analysis of the missile shield system as an essential component of a first-strike strategy underscores the enormous and growing danger that the escalating conflict between the US and Russia could unleash a nuclear conflagration.

Leading Russian military figures and politicians have reacted furiously to the missile shield agreement. Last Friday, General Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the Russian armed forces’ deputy chief of staff, described the pact as an act of aggression against Russia and warned Poland that it was leaving itself open to retaliation — and possibly even a nuclear attack. “Poland, by deploying [the system] is exposing itself to a strike — 100 per cent,” he said.

In his talks with German Chancellor Angela Merkel last Friday, Russian President Dmitry Medvedev repeated the charge that the Polish missile deployment “has the Russian Federation as its target”.

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union in the early 1990s, Washington has followed a policy of systematically encroaching on former Soviet territory to establish a string of military bases and governments friendly to the US. The purpose of this policy was to undermine the influence of Russia in the energy-rich regions of central Asia, while seeking to divide and weaken Europe.

The consequences of Washington’s intervention in the former Soviet bloc have included the installation of a number of authoritarian regimes which lack any genuine broad popular base such as those of Mikheil Saakashvili in Georgia and Viktor Yushchenko in the Ukraine, as well as the regime in Poland. The most common characteristics of these administrations are rabid anti-communism, national chauvinism, contempt for genuine democratic processes and an unwavering adherence to the precepts of the free market.

Such regimes are inherently unstable, both internally and in relation to their neighbours. Now, the US administration has agreed to install a new weapons system in Poland directed against its biggest neighbour, while at the same time guaranteeing to come to the military assistance of the Polish government when necessary. This is a recipe for new conflict and war. Nothing could more clearly express the utter recklessness of US foreign policy.

The dramatic increase of tensions in Eastern Europe eerily recalls the build up to the Second World War. Throughout the 1930s, the German dictator Adolf Hitler professed his peaceful intentions while at the same time undertaking a series of provocations as part of his plan to fundamentally redraw the map of Europe in Germany’s interests. It was precisely in Poland where a global war that would claim over 70 million lives broke out in September 1939.

Prior to leaving for Brussels for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers on Tuesday, the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, wagged her finger and warned that Russia was playing a “dangerous game” in Georgia. The US and its NATO allies would not allow Russia to draw a “new line” through Europe, she declared.

Then, following the summit on Tuesday, Rice returned to the theme and declared with reference to Russia’s military presence in Georgia that there would not be a new line between “those who want to be within and those outside the Atlantic structure.”

Such comments are utterly hypocritical. Russia’s intervention over the past two decades in the states of the former Soviet Union - as in its brutal war in Chechnya — have been of a reactionary character and should be condemned, but there cannot be the least doubt that the main power intent on establishing new power blocs and spheres of influence in the region is the US. This is the significance of the network of military bases and installations established in Eastern and Central Europe by successive US administrations since 1991 with the aim of encircling Russia.

Moreover, it was Rice’s colleague, former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who in 2003 sought to draw a dividing line between “old” and “new” Europe, on the basis of which European countries were prepared to support the US in its war against Iraq. Now in its missile deal with Poland, it is the US which has agreed to a clause that subverts the traditional structures of the NATO alliance in order to further Washington’s unilateral militarist policy in the region.

The increasingly aggressive penetration of the US into central and eastern Europe is causing alarm in Paris, Berlin and Rome. At the same time, Washington is only able to press ahead with its reckless offensive because of the cowardly stance adopted by the European bourgeoisie, which watches as tensions on the continent escalate to boiling point, but is not prepared to challenge the US administration.

Wednesday, August 20, 2008

various headlines

McCain's Mansions

McCain's Mansions

Courtesy of the Brave New Films team, here we have a property-by-property breakdown of John McCain's many fancy domiciles, which provide ironic contrast to footage of the presumptive Republican nominee holding forth about how Americans with mortgage troubs can just scrimp 'n' save their way back to solvency!

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

Related Entries


McCain's Warped Worldview

McCain

The world according to John McCain is one in which America is triumphant at home and abroad thanks to the Bush legacy, rolling to victory internationally and mastering its domestic economic problems. If daily news would seem to deny such a rosy scenario, then that only shows skeptics lack the courage that sustained McCain as a prisoner of war in Vietnam.

READ THE WHOLE ITEM

Related Entries


Economy: 'The Worst Is to Come'

Those words from the former chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, who warns that the global economic malaise is only at its halfway point, if that. "The U.S. is not out of the woods," says Ken Rogoff.


Guardian:

Ken Rogoff, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, added to market jitters by warning that the worst of the crisis was yet to come.

"The US is not out of the woods. I think the financial crisis is at the halfway point, perhaps. I would even go further to say 'the worst is to come'," he told a financial conference in Singapore.

"We're not just going to see mid-sized banks go under in the next few months, we're going to see a whopper, we're going to see a big one—one of the big investment banks or big banks," Rogoff said.


Read more


Poll: For Many, America Still 'Isn't Ready'

Obama mural

Barack Obama has a problem: According to a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, one in six voters thinks he's just too black—for America, that is. It's the political equivalent of "I'm not racist, but my friend is" and, sadly, it may have something to do with the competitive nature of the campaign.


Los Angeles Times:

The poll ... illustrates some racial undercurrents that confront Obama as he strives to become the first African American president. Nine percent of voters say they would feel uncomfortable voting for a black candidate. Most voters say they know people who feel that way. About one in six say the country is not ready to elect a black president.

... For now, voters favor Obama on the economy, the issue they rank as most important. Also, independents, a crucial swing bloc, are leaning toward Obama. And Obama's supporters remain more enthusiastic than McCain's, a sign that the Democratic candidate may be able to turn out more voters.

Read more


READ THE WHOLE ITEM


It's all good

This chart is an updated version of the poll tracking chart that I've been posting from time to time over the past couple of weeks. It shows the rolling 2-week average of polls, by day. For perspective, it also shows the Bush-Kerry race in light red (Bush) and light blue (Kerry).


Data: pollster.com. Chart: jedreport.com.

As you can see, since the primary ended, Barack Obama has enjoyed a durable -- though somewhat shrinking -- lead over John McCain. In short, the sky is not falling.

While it's true that John Kerry was polling slightly better than Obama at this point in 2004, remember that he'd already had his convention. And also note that McCain is behind where Bush was.

For all the talk of what a great month John McCain had, this chart shows that though he strengthened his position with his own base, he hasn't really hurt Barack Obama.

As with 2004, most undecided voters won't decide until after the conventions. I think that explains why the Obama campaign hasn't aired harsher ads on a national basis. Instead, they've focused on strengthening Obama's core image, and more importantly, building the ground game, as dday outlines in his outstanding diary over at Daily Kos.


McCain's "Outrageous" Exaggerations: Voted for earmarks he now rails against

My, my. FactCheck.org does what their name implies and finds that one of McCain's recently resurrected talking points, first featured in an aptly titled ad called "Outrageous," is filled with some rather dubious claims.

John McCain's ad, "Outrageous," which began running November 12, touts the Arizona senator's long-standing fight against pork-barrel spending. The ad includes three examples of projects that McCain deems unnecessary and claims that "one man" has "the guts to stand up to wasteful government spending."

But the three examples of spending highlighted in the ad – a "bridge to nowhere," a study of bear DNA and a museum dedicated to Woodstock – seem chosen more for their impact than for any direct involvement McCain had in attacking them. In fact, he voted in favor of the bill that included the bear study funding; he was absent for key votes on the Woodstock museum (including one on an amendment he co-sponsored); and he never specifically tried to eliminate the bridge earmark and missed some crucial votes on that one, as well.

John McCain exaggerating his record, hoping people won't notice because the establishment media won't report it? You don't say…

(h/t: HuffPo)


Video: The Truth Has God On Its Side

I am very proud of what I did at Halliburton. And the people of Halliburton are very proud of what they've done. --Dick Cheney 2000. Billions in no-bid contracts and massive corruption – of course they're proud.


Obama Responds to McCain at VFW Meeting

Yesterday, John McCain went before the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and lied about Barack Obama's record, saying that Obama voted to "legislate" failure by casting a single vote against troop funding because it did not contain a timetable, despite Obama's having voted for funding the occupation every other time. McCain continued:
"One of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism."
- Obama

"This was back when supporting America's efforts in Iraq entailed serious political risk … It was a clarifying moment. It was a moment when political self-interest and the national interest parted ways."

Today, speaking before the same group, Obama responded:

"Yesterday, Senator McCain came before you," said Obama. "He is a man who has served this nation honorably, and he correctly stated that one of the chief criteria for the American people in this election is going to be who can exercise the best judgment as Commander in Chief. But instead of just offering policy answers, he turned to a typical laundry list of political attacks. He said that I have changed my position on Iraq when I have not. He said that I am for a path of "retreat and failure." And he declared, "Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president" — suggesting, as he has so many times, that I put personal ambition before my country. That is John McCain's prerogative. He can run that kind of campaign, and — frankly — that's how political campaigns have been run in recent years. But I believe the American people are better than that. I believe that this defining moment demands something more of us."


Aurora Man Arrested for Dragging Dog Behind Car

2008_8_19.lucky.jpgCongratulations, David Solis—you've won today's "lower our opinion of humanity" prize. Solis, 25, has been charged with animal cruelty after allegedly dragging a dog behind a moving car. The two-year-old pit bull, who police say was "suffering from obvious wounds to its feet," belongs to one of Solis's relatives.


The dog was just behind a 1993 Honda Civic CRX that had a dog leash attached to the rear window latch, the release said. Investigation showed that the dog had been dragged from the vehicle around an oval track that encircled the parking lot of the complex.

Now's as good a time as any to remind you that there are hundreds of adoptable dogs in Chicago, including Lucky, pictured. Lucky, a pit bull, is friendly, housebroken, and good with kids. "He likes to sit and lean next to you when he sleeps. He loves kisses and hugs and car rides." Don't we all? [WBBM]


Possible bad news for Lieberman

Make my day, punk!

The Associated Press calls Democrats' odds of winning a 60-seat filibuster proof majority in the Senate a "realistic shot."

Democrats have solid chances of winning five seats, according to strategists in both parties and public polls, and realistic shots at picking off another three to five Republican senators. Republicans have only one good opportunity for replacing a Democrat, in Louisiana.

Let us pray…(h/t Billw)


The Secret Deal For Iraq's Oil

The Secret Deal For Iraq's Oil
By Jason Leopold | The Public Record

Four months before the United States invaded Iraq, the Department of Defense was secretly working with Vice President Dick Cheney's old company, Halliburton Corp., on a secret deal that would give the world's second largest oil services company total control over Iraq's oil fields, according to interviews with Halliburton's most senior executives.

Previously undisclosed Halliburton documents obtained by The Public Record confirm that controlling the world's second largest oil reserves was a top priority for the Bush administration. Additionally, the deal between the Department of Defense and Halliburton unit Kellogg, Brown & Root to operate Iraq's oil industry saved Halliburton from imminent bankruptcy.


read more


McCain Fundraiser Under Scrutiny for Ralph Reed Connection

McCain

John McCain managed to pull in over $1.75 million for the GOP during an Atlanta fundraiser on Monday, but the event also attracted attention for its potential ties to erstwhile Christian Coalition leader Ralph Reed. Barack Obama's camp, among others, is raising questions about Reed's connection to the event.



AP via Google News:

The downtown event was promoted by Ralph Reed, a former head of the Christian Coalition. McCain's campaign said the event was organized by the Republican National Committee—not Reed, who was linked to the Abramoff scandal that McCain investigated in the Senate.

McCain didn't raise the issue during his 22-minute appearance. Instead, he thanked donors to the Republicans' umbrella campaign fund.

"Everybody in this room could be someplace else," the Arizona senator told the crowd of several hundred. "Everybody in this room could be donating to some other cause or to their own well-being. But I want to thank you."

Reed was not seen inside the hotel ballroom; a McCain campaign spokeswoman said he did not attend. But Democrat Barack Obama's rival presidential campaign sought to make him an issue, asking how much Reed-linked money was raised or would be kept.

"Faced with the embarrassing prospect of holding a fundraiser with one of Jack Abramoff's closest associates, the McCain campaign scrambled today to scratch Ralph Reed from tonight's program, but voters deserve to know the answers to the real questions raised by Reed's involvement," Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said.

Read more


READ THE WHOLE ITEM


McCain Camp Defends Attack on NBC's Andrea Mitchell

McCain Deputy Communications Director Michael Goldfarb tries to explain why Rick Davis unloaded on a quote from NBC's Andrea Mitchell only hours after he approvingly cited it as part of an attack on Barack Obama. His defense:

I think my tone was neutral, but regardless, this campaign does not question the accuracy of Mitchell's reporting. We question whether it was appropriate to repeat this allegation unquestioningly as Mitchell did.

After all, Mitchell can accurately report that the Obama campaign is whining about their candidate's poor performance and yet still fail to uphold the basic standards of her profession. By repeating, uncritically, a completely unsubstantiated Obama campaign claim that John McCain somehow cheated in last night's forum, that's precisely what she did. And if Mitchell is simply in the business of parroting campaign spin, we'd be happy to share ours with her before next week's episode of Meet the Press.

Umm, where to begin. Let's start with the fact that the allegation that Mitchell reported is true and was in fact confirmed by Goldfarb himself.

Mitchell said:

The Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to in that context, because what they are putting out privately is that McCain may not have been in the cone of silence and may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama. He seemed so well-prepared.

Point #1: As Goldfarb initially (and correctly) recognized, Mitchell's comment was supported her claim that "the Obama people must feel that he didn't do quite as well as they might have wanted to." It's hard to call that partisan bias.

Point #2: The allegation conveyed by Mitchell was that McCain "may have had some ability to overhear what the questions were to Obama." As Goldfarb and Davis have admitted, McCain was not in the cone of silence for the first half of the forum. There are any number of ways that he could have heard the questions, either audibly (satellite radio, cell phone, internet) or through textual means such as Blackberries.

The bottom-line: Goldfarb's explanation not only makes no sense, it digs the McCain campaign in even deeper.


Chico CA City Council Asked to Pass Resolution Regarding Impeaching Bush, Cheney

City Council asked to pass resolution regarding impeaching Bush, Cheney

A group of residents want the Chico City Council to back up their request to impeach the president and vice president.

The group, which informally calls itself the "Chico Impeach Team," is asking the council to pass a resolution urging Congress to "do its job" and begin the process to impeach President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, group project leader Marla Crites said.

While acknowledging the terms of both will end in January, Crites said she believed it was not too late for impeachment.

"I think they need to be held accountable whether they have one more day in office or two more years," Crites said. "I think we need to fight for justice or fairness ... Whoever wins the election can, unless we set things straight, can pick up wherever they left off and can continue the same behavior. And that to me is dangerous."


read more


Suffocating Dead Zones Spread Across World's Oceans

    Critically low oxygen levels now pose as great a threat to life in the world's oceans as overfishing and habitat loss, say experts.

    With more than 400 oxygen-starved dead zones in global coastal waters, scientists are calling for such dead zones to be recognised as one of the world's great environmental problems

    Man-made pollution is spreading a growing number of suffocating dead zones across the world's seas with disastrous consequences for marine life, scientists have warned.

 &nbs


read more






Tuesday, August 19, 2008

t r u t h o u t | Anti-Regulation Aide to Cheney Is Up for Energy Post

t r u t h o u t | Anti-Regulation Aide to Cheney Is Up for Energy Post
A senior aide to Vice President Cheney is the leading contender to become a top official at the Energy Department, according to several current and former administration officials, a promotion that would put one of the administration's most ardent opponents of environmental regulation in charge of forming department policies on climate change.

F. Chase Hutto III has played a prominent behind-the-scenes role in shaping the administration's environmental policies for several years, the officials said, helping to rewrite rules affecting the air that Americans breathe and the waters that oil tankers traverse. In every instance, according to both his allies and opponents, he has challenged proposals that would place additional regulations on industry.

The move to elevate the domestic policy adviser to the post of assistant secretary for policy and international affairs signals the administration's determination to resist new environmental protections, environmentalists said.

The assistant secretary is the "primary advisor to the Secretary and the Department on energy and technology policy development," conducts overseas negotiations on energy issues such as climate change, performs environmental analyses, and "leads the Department's international energy initiatives," according to the agency's Web site.

Hutto did not respond to several requests for an interview. Cheney spokeswoman Lea Anne McBride would not comment on the matter, saying the office does not discuss pending nominations, but she confirmed that Hutto has helped shape administration policies on an array of issues, including proposed protections for endangered right whales and whether to regulate carbon dioxide emissions under the Clean Air Act.

"There is an interagency review process," McBride said in an interview. White House aides are "expected to offer opinions and participate in policy debates. That's the way the process works."

Jason K. Burnett, an administration critic who served as the Environmental Protection Agency's deputy associate administrator until June, said of Hutto: "He always struck me as being naturally and philosophically opposed to regulation at the outset, and it took an enormous amount of discussion and analysis to convince him otherwise." He added: "I can't think of a case where Chase advocated more environmental or health protections."

Hutto, 39, a Michigan native and a veteran of several successful GOP campaigns, has spent almost his entire career working for Republicans in Washington. He started out as an opposition researcher working on Spencer Abraham's 1994 upset Senate victory and conducted similar research for two other Senate bids before serving on the Bush-Cheney 2000 campaign as a vote-recount team leader in Duval County, Fla.

After receiving a bachelor's degree in business administration and a law degree, both from the University of Michigan, Hutto worked briefly in the private sector at the firm Venable, Baetjer, Howard and Civiletti before joining Abraham's staff on the Judiciary subcommittee on immigration in October 1997. As a Senate staffer, Hutto focused on issues such as electronic commerce and privacy; he shifted his focus when Abraham took over the Energy Department in January 2001 and Hutto became a senior policy adviser there.

Burnett said Hutto, a vocal proponent of the free market, argued during interagency climate policy meetings that Americans are attached to their cars and would be loath to sacrifice them to achieve greenhouse gas reductions.

At the White House, Hutto has been one of the oil and gas industry's key points of contact for energy and environmental issues.

His policy portfolio has expanded over time, giving him significant influence over energy and environmental matters. He was detailed to the National Security Council as an energy adviser in October 2004 and moved to Cheney's office a year later as deputy assistant to the vice president for domestic policy.

"He's got an incredible amount of authority and a portfolio seemingly without end," said a source familiar with policy discussions involving Hutto. "He's got his fingers in everything."

Appointment as assistant secretary would be a promotion, however, and could enhance Hutto's stature if he wanted to return to the private sector after President Bush leaves office.

Juleanna R. Glover, a former Cheney aide who worked with Hutto on Abraham's first Senate bid, said that he had earned his considerable power through his energy expertise and his "deeply principled conservatism."

"He's one of the foremost energy experts in Washington," she said, adding that he was "one of the original foot soldiers in the '94 recapture of Congress" by Republicans.

In recent months, Hutto has helped scale back a rule proposed by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration to protect North Atlantic right whales - one of the most endangered animals on the planet - from lethal ship strikes. The rule NOAA submitted 1 1/2 years ago originally would have required ships within 30 nautical miles of several East Coast ports to slow to 10 knots or less during parts of the year when the whales are migrating.

Acting on Cheney's behalf, Hutto questioned whether there was sufficient scientific evidence to justify the economic costs that the rule would impose on shippers. The White House plans to issue a revised ship strike rule next month that will reduce the perimeter around the ports from 30 to 20 nautical miles and will "sunset" the rule after five years. New England Aquarium research scientist Amy Knowlton said those changes would "undermine the scientific integrity of the rule," since right whales have been spotted within 30 miles of the ports.

On other occasions, Hutto has questioned whether NOAA was responding too slowly to energy industry petitions. Shell Oil petitioned the agency last year for an "incidental harassment authorization" that would have allowed it to injure or kill a small number of marine mammals in connection with oil and gas drilling off Alaska in 2008; Hutto inquired about getting a quicker decision on Shell's request in light of the Arctic's limited drilling season.

Shell later withdrew its request.

An administration official, discussing internal deliberations on the condition of anonymity, said Hutto did not pressure NOAA to approve Shell's request. "Chase and others wanted a yes-or-no decision, understanding that the decision to deny or grant the permit is within an agency's discretion," the official said.

The conservative positions taken by Hutto and the vice president's office have held wide sway in internal policy debates, but occasionally he was stymied, participants said. Burnett said that this year Hutto opposed tightening federal rules for smog-forming ozone - which is linked to thousands of premature deaths each year- and in 2005 he questioned why the EPA needed to limit mercury emissions from power plants, because the agency had just issued a rule that would have the incidental effect of somewhat reducing the toxic pollutant. In both instances, the EPA strengthened the protections over these objections.

Sources both inside and outside the administration said it is unclear whether Bush will formally nominate Hutto for the Energy Department post or place him there in an acting capacity. Kathy Fredriksen, an acting assistant secretary, currently holds the job.

Francesca Grifo - who directs the Scientific Integrity Program at the Union of Concerned Scientists, an advocacy group - said that if Hutto takes the helm of the Energy Department's climate policy office, the impact could last well beyond Bush's term in office.

"It's not surprising that the Bush administration is considering a candidate who has a track record of putting politics ahead of science. Over and over again, appointments like this one have damaged the government's ability to protect the environment and public health," Grifo said, adding that in the coming months, Hutto could make policy decisions that the next administration would find difficult to reverse quickly.

Fox’s Campaign Carl Lies, Gives McCain Credit For Fictitious GI Bill Provision

Fox's Campaign Carl Lies, Gives McCain Credit For Fictitious GI Bill Provision

Yesterday, while speaking to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) attempted to steal credit for the GI Bill that he actively opposed. Fox News's Carl Cameron gave McCain's efforts a major boost last night, declaring that McCain successfully changed the GI Bill — to create "a more proportionate award" of benefits — and thus was able to support it:

CAMERON: John McCain initially took some opposition to it [the GI Bill], because in McCain's view, it didn't proportionately give GI benefits to servicemen and women, depending on how long they were actually in active duty and service. He thought it should be a more proportionate award. He fought for it, it was inserted into the legislation, and in the end, McCain supported it.

Watch it:

Popout

The GI Bill as approved in no way resembles McCain's so-called proportional proposal. The GI Bill provides 100 percent tuition payments to those who have served 36 months in active duty, and gives 80 percent to those who have served 24 months. By contrast, under McCain's proposal, a soldier would have had to serve four times as long — 12 years in active duty – to be eligible for the most generous benefits.

McCain has offered a handful of excuses why he did not support the GI Bill, claiming it was too expensive, too generous, or might somehow hamper retention rates. The fact is that McCain was always "full of it" on the bill, and now — with the help of Fox News — he's simply trying to rewrite history. (HT: Newshounds)

Obama hits back at McCain cheap shots in VFW speech

Obama hits back at McCain cheap shots in VFW speech

Just as McCain did Monday, Barack Obama addressed the Veterans of Foreign Wars today, and didn't pull any punches in his response to McCain's attacks, especially when it came to the cheap shot that he would rather win the Presidency than win the war. It's welcoming to see a Democrat eager to go before traditionally Republican-friendly audiences and knock it out of the park.

video_wmv Download | Play video_mov Download | Play (HT: David)

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation. Senator McCain predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqis would bear the cost of rebuilding through their bountiful oil revenues. For the good of our country, I wish he had been right, and I had been wrong. But that's not what history shows. […]

These are the judgments I've made and the policies that we have to debate, because we do have differences in this election. But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Full transcript below the fold:

Thank you, Commander Lisicki, for your leadership. Let me also acknowledge the leadership of Virginia Carman, the president of the VFW ladies auxiliary, as well as my friend Jim Webb who will be speaking here later today. Finally, let me thank all of the members of the Veterans of Foreign Wars of the United States of America for inviting me back to this convention. It is a privilege to be among so many who have given so much for our country.

I stand before you today at a defining moment in our history. We are in the midst of two wars. The terrorists who attacked us on 9/11 are still at large. Russia has invaded the sovereign nation of Georgia. Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons. The next Commander-in-Chief is going to have to exercise the best possible judgment in getting us through these difficult times.

Yesterday, Senator McCain came before you. He is a man who has served this nation honorably, and he correctly stated that one of the chief criteria for the American people in this election is going to be who can exercise the best judgment as Commander in Chief. But instead of just offering policy answers, he turned to a typical laundry list of political attacks. He said that I have changed my position on Iraq when I have not. He said that I am for a path of "retreat and failure." And he declared, "Behind all of these claims and positions by Senator Obama lies the ambition to be president" – suggesting, as he has so many times, that I put personal ambition before my country.

That is John McCain's prerogative. He can run that kind of campaign, and – frankly – that's how political campaigns have been run in recent years. But I believe the American people are better than that. I believe that this defining moment demands something more of us.

If we think that we can secure our country by just talking tough without acting tough and smart, then we will misunderstand this moment and miss its opportunities. If we think that we can use the same partisan playbook where we just challenge our opponent's patriotism to win an election, then the American people will lose. The times are too serious for this kind of politics. The calamity left behind by the last eight years is too great. So let me begin by offering my judgment about what we've done, where we are, and where we need to go.

Six years ago, I stood up at a time when it was politically difficult to oppose going to war in Iraq, and argued that our first priority had to be finishing the fight against Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda in Afghanistan. Senator McCain was already turning his sights to Iraq just days after 9/11, and he became a leading supporter of an invasion and occupation of a country that had absolutely nothing to do with the 9/11 attacks, and that – as despicable as Saddam Hussein was – posed no imminent threat to the American people. Two of the biggest beneficiaries of that decision were al Qaeda's leadership, which no longer faced the pressure of America's focused attention; and Iran, which has advanced its nuclear program, continued its support for terror, and increased its influence in Iraq and the region.

In the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, I warned that war would fan the flames of extremism in the Middle East, create new centers of terrorism, and tie us down in a costly and open-ended occupation. Senator McCain predicted that we'd be greeted as liberators, and that the Iraqis would bear the cost of rebuilding through their bountiful oil revenues. For the good of our country, I wish he had been right, and I had been wrong. But that's not what history shows.

Senator McCain now argues that despite these costly strategic errors, his judgment has been vindicated due to the results of the surge. Let me once again praise General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker – they are outstanding Americans. In Iraq, gains have been made in lowering the level of violence thanks to the outstanding efforts of our military, the increasing capability of Iraq's Security Forces, the ceasefire of Shiite militias, and the decision taken by Sunni tribes to take the fight to al Qaeda. Those are the facts, and all Americans welcome them.

But understand what the essential argument was about. Before the surge, I argued that the long-term solution in Iraq is political – the Iraqi government must reconcile its differences and take responsibility for its future. That holds true today. We have lost over a thousand American lives and spent hundreds of billions of dollars since the surge began, but Iraq's leaders still haven't made hard compromises or substantial investments in rebuilding their country. Our military is badly overstretched – a fact that has surely been noted in capitals around the world. And while we pay a heavy price in Iraq – and Americans pay record prices at the pump – Iraq's government is sitting on a $79 billion dollar budget surplus from windfall oil profits.

Let's be clear: our troops have completed every mission they've been given. They have created the space for political reconciliation. Now it must be filled by an Iraqi government that reconciles its differences and spends its oil profits to meet the needs of its people. Iraqi inaction threatens the progress we've made and creates an opening for Iran and the "special groups" it supports. It's time to press the Iraqis to take responsibility for their future. The best way to do that is a responsible redeployment of our combat brigades, carried out in close consultation with commanders on the ground. We can safely redeploy at a pace that removes our combat brigades in 16 months. That would be well into 2010 – seven years after the war began. After this redeployment, we'll keep a residual force to target remnants of al Qaeda; to protect our service members and diplomats; and to train Iraq's Security Forces if the Iraqis make political progress.

Iraq's democratically-elected Prime Minister has embraced this timeframe. Now it's time to succeed in Iraq by turning Iraq over to its sovereign government. We should not keep sending our troops to fight tour after tour of duty while our military is overstretched. We should not keep spending $10 billion a month in Iraq while Americans struggle in a sluggish economy. Ending the war will allow us to invest in America, to strengthen our military, and to finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan and the border region of Pakistan.

This is the central front in the war on terrorism. This is where the Taliban is gaining strength and launching new attacks, including one that just took the life of ten French soldiers. This is where Osama bin Laden and the same terrorists who killed nearly 3,000 Americans on our own soil are hiding and plotting seven years after 9/11. This is a war that we have to win. And as Commander-in-Chief, I will have no greater priority than taking out these terrorists who threaten America, and finishing the job against the Taliban.

For years, I have called for more resources and more troops to finish the fight in Afghanistan. With his overwhelming focus on Iraq, Senator McCain argued that we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, and only came around to supporting my call for more troops last month. Now, we need a policy of "more for more" – more from America and our NATO allies, and more from the Afghan government. That's why I've called for at least two additional U.S. combat brigades and an additional $1 billion in non-military assistance for Afghanistan, with a demand for more action from the Afghan government to take on corruption and counternarcotics, and to improve the lives of the Afghan people.

We must also recognize that we cannot succeed in Afghanistan or secure America as long as there is a terrorist safe-haven in northwest Pakistan. A year ago, I said that we must take action against bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights and Pakistan cannot or will not act. Senator McCain criticized me and claimed that I was for "bombing our ally." So for all of his talk about following Osama bin Laden to the Gates of Hell, Senator McCain refused to join my call to take out bin Laden across the Afghan border. Instead, he spent years backing a dictator in Pakistan who failed to serve the interests of his own people.

I argued for years that we need to move from a "Musharraf policy" to a "Pakistan policy." We must move beyond an alliance built on mere convenience or a relationship with one man. Now, with President Musharraf's resignation, we have the opportunity to do just that. That's why I've cosponsored a bill to triple non-military aid to the Pakistani people, while ensuring that the military assistance we do provide is used to take the fight to the Taliban and al Qaeda in the tribal regions of Pakistan.

Today, our attention is also on the Republic of Georgia, and Senator McCain and I both strongly support the people of Georgia and the Americans delivering humanitarian aid. There is no possible justification for Russia's actions. Russian troops have yet to begin the withdrawal required by the cease-fire signed by their president, and we are hearing reports of Russian atrocities: burning wheat fields, brutal killing, and the destruction of Georgia's infrastructure and military assets.

This crisis underscores the need for engaged U.S. leadership in the world. We failed to head off this conflict and lost leverage in our ability to contain it because our leaders have been distracted, our resources overstretched, and our alliances frayed. American leadership means getting engaged earlier to shape events so that we're not merely responding to them. That's why I'm committed to renewing our leadership and rebuilding our alliances as President of the United States.

For months, I have called for active international engagement to resolve the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia. I made it crystal clear before, at the beginning of, and during this conflict that Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected, and that Georgia should be integrated into transatlantic institutions. I have condemned Russian aggression, and today I reiterate my demand that Russia abide by the cease-fire. Russia must know that its actions will have consequences. They will imperil the Civil Nuclear Agreement, and Russia's standing in the international community – including the NATO-Russia Council, and Russia's desire to participate in organizations like the WTO and the OECD. Finally, we must help Georgia rebuild what has been destroyed. That is why I'm proud to join my friend, Senator Joe Biden, in calling for an additional $1 billion in reconstruction assistance for the people of Georgia.

These are the judgments I've made and the policies that we have to debate, because we do have differences in this election. But one of the things that we have to change in this country is the idea that people can't disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. I have never suggested that Senator McCain picks his positions on national security based on politics or personal ambition. I have not suggested it because I believe that he genuinely wants to serve America's national interest. Now, it's time for him to acknowledge that I want to do the same.

Let me be clear: I will let no one question my love of this country. I love America, so do you, and so does John McCain. When I look out at this audience, I see people of different political views. You are Democrats and Republicans and Independents. But you all served together, and fought together, and bled together under the same proud flag. You did not serve a Red America or a Blue America – you served the United States of America.

So let's have a serious debate, and let's debate our disagreements on the merits of policy – not personal attacks. And no matter how heated it gets or what kind of campaign he chooses to run, I will honor Senator McCain's service, just like I honor the service of every veteran in this room, and every American who has worn the uniform of the United States.

One of those Americans was my grandfather, Stanley Dunham.

My father left when I was 2, so my grandfather was the man who helped raise me. He grew up in El Dorado, Kansas – a town too small to warrant boldface on a road map. He worked on oil rigs and drifted from town to town during the Depression. Then he met my grandmother and enlisted after Pearl Harbor. He would go on to march across Europe in Patton's Army, while my great uncle fought with the 89th Infantry Division to liberate Buchenwald, my grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, and my mother was born at Fort Leavenworth. After my grandfather left the Army, he went to college on the GI Bill, bought his home with help from the Federal Housing Authority, and he and my grandmother moved west in a restless pursuit of their dreams.

They were among the men and women of our Greatest Generation. They came from ordinary places, and went on to do extraordinary things. They survived a Depression and faced down fascism. And when the guns fell silent, America stood by them, because they had a government that didn't just ask them to win a war – it helped them to live their dreams in peace, and to become the backbone of the largest middle class that the world has ever known. In the five years after World War II, the GI Bill helped 15 million veterans get an education. Two million went to college. Millions more learned a trade in factories or on farms. Four million veterans received help in buying a home, leading to the biggest home construction boom in our history.

And these veterans didn't just receive a hand from Washington – they did their part to lift up America, just as they'd done their duty in defending it. They became teachers and doctors, cops and firefighters who were the foundation of our communities. They became the innovators and small business owners who helped drive the American economy. They became the scientists and engineers who helped us win the space race against the Soviets. They won a Cold War, and left a legacy to their children and grandchildren who reached new horizons of opportunity.

I am a part of that legacy. Without it, I would not be standing on this stage today. And as President, I will do everythin